Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

Teenagers aren't stupid, they (should) know where babies come from and IME the younger they are the less able they are to look rationally at the topic and the more likely to be swayed by pro-life ideas and unable to separate the idea of a baby from the reality of a foetus and the physical and mental toll of birth and raising a child.

I'm a bit confused by this bit - we're agreed that teenagers aren't stupid (I would go so far as to say I've never met a stupid child either, and I've worked with quite a few!), but then you make the second point about what they are more likely to be swayed by, as though they are complete dullards!

It just seems directly contradictory is all.

volchitsa

kylith wrote: »

First off, I agree with you: It is not in a 14yo's best interest to remain pregnant, emotionally or physically. They even knew that in Shakespeare's time. However my concern would be that 'not allowing' her to carry the pregnancy if she is adamant that she wants to could be just as psychologically damaging.

Teenagers aren't stupid, they (should) know where babies come from and IME the younger they are the less able they are to look rationally at the topic and the more likely to be swayed by pro-life ideas and unable to separate the idea of a baby from the reality of a foetus and the physical and mental toll of birth and raising a child.

I agree. And I said that no force would be acceptable (which in itself distinguishes my view from a significant number of pro life people who hummed and hawed about Ms Y being forcibly restrained).

But it's also a fact that the more they are led to believe that it's already a baby etc etc, i.e. the more they're exposed to pro life propaganda, the harder they are likely to find the idea of terminating the pregnancy no matter how the idea of a future as a mother may terrify them.

That's why I mentioned puppies - how many people, never mind children or young teens, could avoid wanting to take a lost puppy home, no matter how impractical they knew the subsequent care of a dog would be.

It's odd that it would be considered irresponsible to encourage children to take on pets if the parents can't ensure that care will be available for the next decade or so, but we're expected to say that being "pro choice" for adult women means one should be neutral on the idea of a young teen being encouraged to do the same about a baby.

And we've had no lower age limit given either. 9 year olds should be expected to make a choice about having a baby? Really?

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I completely agree with you that the issue here isn't about abortion, but I don't think there's anything crooked about it, particularly when it's obviously a minor we're talking about here and the fact that a GAL was appointed to advocate on her behalf.

It's not unusual for the media to want to portray the circumstances of the case in a particular light though according to their own agenda, to give the appearance of something being crooked about the way the case was handled.

There was a Guardian Ad Litem for the unborn appointed first.

Samaris

kylith wrote: »

First off, I agree with you: It is not in a 14yo's best interest to remain pregnant, emotionally or physically. They even knew that in Shakespeare's time. However my concern would be that 'not allowing' (i.e. pushing her toward termination) her to carry the pregnancy if she is adamant that she wants to could be just as psychologically damaging.

One issue with that in this case is that she was adamant that she did not want to carry the pregnancy through. And for claiming her rights under the 8th, she was sectioned against her will and against her mother's will. That's what happened when they went to the State for help, which the State had previously promised via this wishy-washy abusable piece of legalese.

No-one should be forced into an abortion, I agree. But that wasn't the situation here.

There were warnings that something like this -could- happen (same as there's warnings that someone could at some point use abortion for contraception). Well, it has. Now what do we do about it?

Annasopra

Samaris wrote: »

One issue with that in this case is that she was adamant that she did not want to carry the pregnancy through. And for claiming her rights under the 8th, she was sectioned against her will and against her mother's will. That's what happened when they went to the State for help, which the State had previously promised via this wishy-washy abusable piece of legalese.

No-one should be forced into an abortion, I agree. But that wasn't the situation here.

There were warnings that something like this -could- happen (same as there's warnings that someone could at some point use abortion for contraception). Well, it has. Now what do we do about it?

Repeal the 8th and change the legislation. Thats the only way to deal with it in my view.

Samaris

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Repeal the 8th and change the legislation. Thats the only way to deal with it in my view.

There's been too many cases showing it is not fit for purpose. And it is and always was going to be highly abusable.

RobertKK

People want safe and legal abortion like they have in England...
http://www.thejournal.ie/doctor-nurses-charged-abortion-irish-woman-2146297-Jun2015/

Samaris

RobertKK wrote: »

People want safe and legal abortion like they have in England...
http://www.thejournal.ie/doctor-nurses-charged-abortion-irish-woman-2146297-Jun2015/

Yes. Many of us do.

And yes, you can throw up cases where things went badly wrong (I wonder now if the pressure of having the abortion rates of -two- countries being crammed into one could possibly maybe contribute to poor management of individual cases in the UK?), just like with any other medical procedure.

So safe and legal abortion HERE overseen by the State (which is morally craven currently in hiding its head under a parapet) is far more preferable than exporting the problem to England and pretending that we virtuous Irish never are faced with an impossible pregnancy. Hospitals would have the complete medical records of the individuals involved, would know about potential complexities and contra-indications. Medical carers would be able to care for their patients with full knowledge of their situation. We could treat the whole problem (and it is a problem now and will be as long as we're in legal limbo) as mature, functioning adults rather than cowards afraid to face a difficult situation - a situation made more difficult by our legal system.

Also, what the hell happens to this situation once Brexit goes ahead?

Should I link cases where a refusal to terminate a pregnancy has lead to deaths?

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Well no, that's not what the evidence says. Early motherhood is closely associated with poor outcomes on just about every measure there is.

That these poor outcomes can be alleviated to varying extents by sufficient levels of support doesn't change the underlying fact that you haven't been able to name a single way in which very early motherhood can possibly be good for the girl. That's because it can't.

volchista you keep referring back to evidence based on statistics as though they're meant to carry any weight in people making decisions for themselves based on their own circumstances and their own feeling that they know better than anyone else what's best for themselves and what they are and aren't capable of.

I already said I'm not disputing the statistics, they are what they are - evidence gathered after the fact. You're using statistics pre-emptively and attempting to map a broader context onto an individual perspective. That's not how statistics actually work! If they did work like that, then you would have people arguing that the only people who should be licensed to have children are white people who's incomes are above a certain threshold, working in careers where they also get to spend an appropriate amount of bonding time with their children in the best interests of the childs personal and social development...

Because ain't no good outcomes ever came of them coloured folk having the babies an' gittin' all pregnant agin' n agin'... statistically speaking, of course!

RobertKK

Samaris wrote: »

Yes. Many of us do.

And yes, you can throw up cases where things went badly wrong (I wonder now if the pressure of having the abortion rates of -two- countries being crammed into one could possibly maybe contribute to poor management of individual cases in the UK?), just like with any other medical procedure.

So safe and legal abortion HERE overseen by the State (which is morally craven currently in hiding its head under a parapet) is far more preferable than exporting the problem to England and pretending that we virtuous Irish never are faced with an impossible pregnancy. Hospitals would have the complete medical records of the individuals involved, would know about potential complexities and contra-indications. Medical carers would be able to care for their patients with full knowledge of their situation. We could treat the whole problem (and it is a problem now and will be as long as we're in legal limbo) as mature, functioning adults rather than cowards afraid to face a difficult situation - a situation made more difficult by our legal system.

Also, what the hell happens to this situation once Brexit goes ahead?

Should I link cases where a refusal to terminate a pregnancy has lead to deaths?

Please do quote a case in Ireland.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

volchista you keep referring back to evidence based on statistics as though they're meant to carry any weight in people making decisions for themselves based on their own circumstances and their own feeling that they know better than anyone else what's best for themselves and what they are and aren't capable of.

I already said I'm not disputing the statistics, they are what they are - evidence gathered after the fact. You're using statistics pre-emptively and attempting to map a broader context onto an individual perspective. That's not how statistics actually work! If they did work like that, then you would have people arguing that the only people who should be licensed to have children are white people who's incomes are above a certain threshold, working in careers where they also get to spend an appropriate amount of bonding time with their children in the best interests of the childs personal and social development...

Because ain't no good outcomes ever came of them coloured folk having the babies an' gittin' all pregnant agin' n agin'... statistically speaking, of course!

Wow. This is both bizarre and, frankly, offensive.

My question isn't whether adults should be allowed to have children, as you are trying to twist it towards, but why the usual rule whereby adult carers make the important decisions for their minor dependant should not apply in the case of pregnancy only.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm a bit confused by this bit - we're agreed that teenagers aren't stupid (I would go so far as to say I've never met a stupid child either, and I've worked with quite a few!), but then you make the second point about what they are more likely to be swayed by, as though they are complete dullards!

It just seems directly contradictory is all.

They know what a pregnancy is, so they know what is happening to them. However they are also easily manipulated by people in authority so the anti-choice rhetoric of "It's alive! It's a baby! You're a murderer!" could have a very big impact on a teenage girl who is trying to make a very big decision when what she really needs is to have the situation and what is going to happen to her during pregnancy and birth explained, and to be told that she will be supported whatever she decides.

RobertKK wrote: »

People want safe and legal abortion like they have in England...
http://www.thejournal.ie/doctor-nurses-charged-abortion-irish-woman-2146297-Jun2015/

There are risks to any surgery, regardless of how routine it is. Should we ban varicose vein removals because a woman died after one? Jesus, you've a 3% chance of dying while getting your tonsils out, we should immediately ban tonsillectomies!

I wonder if she'd have died if when she discovered she was pregnant she could have gotten a prescription from her GP and had a termination before she was so far along as to need a surgical one.

neonsofa

kylith wrote: »

They know what a pregnancy is, so they know what is happening to them. However they are also easily manipulated by people in authority so the anti-choice rhetoric of "It's alive! It's a baby! You're a murderer!" could have a very big impact on a teenage girl who is trying to make a very big decision when what she really needs is to have the situation and what is going to happen to her during pregnancy and birth explained, and to be told that she will be supported whatever she decides.

.

Absolutely. I agree with this post so much.
And equally, if a teenager as a starting point believes that the fetus is her baby rather than biological matter, not as a result of any coercion or what have you, but just genuinely herself feels that she is now carrying her baby and feels like any other expectant mother night towards it, that she is willing to care for and love the baby, then trying to coerce her into a termination (which she herself may feel is ending the life of her own baby) is equally traumatising imo. I always believed I would terminate if I became pregnant in circumstances that weren't ideal, even when buying a pregnancy test it was with a view to confirming the situation and making plans to rectify it. Then when it sank in that I was pregnant I just couldn't terminate. That had nothing to do with anti choice rhetoric, I myself fully support a woman's choice to abort and don't think it is murder but when I myself was pregnant I felt differently about me myself having the procedure. So to coerce a person to terminate what they themselves consider their baby is just as inhamane imo as forcing them to birth a child they don't want.

Her decision should be respected and her support network should absolutely explain the realities of both, but I don't agree with people telling her what she should do- what they deem is "for the best" because she is the one who has to live with what is a very significant decision, it should be one that she makes with the support of those around her not a decision that is made for her.

BoatMad

the sooner we repeal the 8th and remove these daft " angels on the head of a pin " stuff from the constitution and let the Dail legislate as suits the social conventions of the day , the better

its a complete corruption of democratic politics to allow constitutions to contain narrow definitions and in effect act as if it is legislation

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Wow. This is both bizarre and, frankly, offensive.

My question isn't whether adults should be allowed to have children, as you are trying to twist it towards, but why the usual rule whereby adult carers make the important decisions for their minor dependant should not apply in the case of pregnancy only.

Was it bizarre and frankly offensive because I used the same statistics you're using to make exactly the point you're making about the potential outcomes of women who choose not to avail of an abortion when the statistics overwhelmingly suggest that the outcomes aren't good?

In fact, according to the same statistics, the best outcomes overall are children who are born to lesbian couples! Any woman who isn't in a lesbian relationship should have an abortion then in that case, in their best interests of course :rolleyes:

(I'm reluctant to use that rolleyes to indicate I'm being sarcastic, but seeing as it wasn't abundantly clear to you the first time!)

What I'm suggesting is no more offensive than you telling someone a couple of years too late that in spite of the fact that they are well educated and their child is happy and healthy and well educated, what's more important to you than acknowledging they are speaking from their experience, is what the statistics say.

You really haven't a leg to stand on to claim offence when the very same reason and logic that you're using to make your point, is used to make a counter-point to yours. The statistics suggest that of the women who avail of abortion - over 70% of them are from religious communities, and the main reason given is for socioeconomic reasons. So, trying to use the issue of abortion to take a pop at religion is serving those women with a double whammy of the same guilt that you say is put upon them already by virtue of the fact that they are religious, and secondly you're completely ignoring the reason for the vast majority of abortions which are socioeconomic reasons - lack of opportunities available to them which severely limits the choices that are available to them.

Even if abortion were available in Ireland, it would still do nothing to address the underlying causes of why many women feel they have no choice but to have an abortion, and that's exactly why there are people working in family planning organisations which are meant to provide support to women experiencing crisis pregnancy, actively coercing women who are already distressed and seeking support, that they would likely be better off to have an abortion, because the statistics suggest that the outcomes won't be good for them otherwise.

At least if a girl experiencing a crisis pregnancy thinks of approaching her spiritual or religious leader, she has a fair idea of what to expect. When she has to approach a complete stranger whom she is expecting will support her, and then she gets the opposite, or what you might call an attempt to discuss the situation logically, then is it any surprise she is left feeling like she has nobody to turn to for support?

To refer to your question btw - who argued that the rule shouldn't apply?

Of course it still applies, how many times do I have to say that it's a better outcome all round if the parents are on board with whatever decision the child makes, whatever that decision may be? You said yourself though you wouldn't force the child one way or the other so we're all good surely, because I wouldn't either.

Captain Obvious

BoatMad wrote: »

the sooner we repeal the 8th and remove these daft " angels on the head of a pin " stuff from the constitution and let the Dail legislate as suits the social conventions of the day , the better

its a complete corruption of democratic politics to allow constitutions to contain narrow definitions and in effect act as if it is legislation

It didn't. It was changed to be more sepcific by democratic vote.

Anita Blow

Samaris wrote: »

One issue with that in this case is that she was adamant that she did not want to carry the pregnancy through. And for claiming her rights under the 8th, she was sectioned against her will and against her mother's will. That's what happened when they went to the State for help, which the State had previously promised via this wishy-washy abusable piece of legalese.

No-one should be forced into an abortion, I agree. But that wasn't the situation here.

There were warnings that something like this -could- happen (same as there's warnings that someone could at some point use abortion for contraception). Well, it has. Now what do we do about it?

I absolutely agree the 8th needs to be repealed, but the POLDP Act criteria wasn't met in this case. Not wanting to carry a pregnancy through satisfies none of the criteria of the act. Suicidal intent arising from the pregnancy on its own doesn't satisfy the criteria either.

The girl's detainment had nothing to do with her pregnancy but had everything to do with her initial presentation.

Can you cite the report on this case or the relevant parts of the POLDP Act that show where it was abused? I've shown several times before here where protocol was not broken in this case but people seem keen to persist in fitting this story to the repeal narrative.

volchitsa

Anita Blow wrote: »

I absolutely agree the 8th needs to be repealed, but the POLDP Act criteria wasn't met in this case. Not wanting to carry a pregnancy through satisfies none of the criteria of the act. Suicidal intent arising from the pregnancy on its own doesn't satisfy the criteria either.

The girl's detainment had nothing to do with her pregnancy but had everything to do with her initial presentation.

Can you cite the report on this case or the relevant parts of the POLDP Act that show where it was abused? I've shown several times before here where protocol was not broken in this case but people seem keen to persist in fitting this story to the repeal narrative.

You may be right, but given what POLDPA was brought in specifically in order to do (legislate for the X case ruling) then if the bolded part is accurate, POLDPA is not fit for purpose.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

volchista you keep referring back to evidence based on statistics as though they're meant to carry any weight in people making decisions for themselves based on their own circumstances and their own feeling that they know better than anyone else what's best for themselves and what they are and aren't capable of.

Well, yes.

When someone says "You and your statistics! Cigarettes never make me sick, they help me concentrate at work and relax after!" they are doing exactly what you suggest - making decisions based on their own feeling that they have a pretty good grasp of things.

And it'll kill about half of them.

Anita Blow

volchitsa wrote: »

You may be right, but given what POLDPA was brought in specifically in order to do (legislate for the X case ruling) then if the bolded part is accurate, POLDPA is not fit for purpose.

Again it comes back to the limitation of the 8th amendment. The X case ruled that abortion be available for women suicidal due to their pregnancy, but it still must be interpreted in the context of the 8th amendment which requires that due consideration be given to the life of the fetus.
In practice this means that abortion must be the only treatment likely to cure the suicidal intent before it can be granted.

I haven't really been intending to debate the merits of abortion as a treatment for suicide arising from pregnancy. What I've been trying to do is demonstrate that the psychiatrist in question followed the law, as people have been determined to drag him/her through the mud and attribute malice to a person only acting within the legal limits placed upon them. Some have gone so far as to suggest a medical professional coaxed a family to Dublin telling them they're getting an abortion just so they can section them, despite no publication even alluding to this.

Zubeneschamali

Anita Blow wrote: »

What I've been trying to do is demonstrate that the psychiatrist in question followed the law, as people have been determined to drag him/her through the mud and attribute malice to a person only acting within the legal limits placed upon them.

I did no attribute any malice, just pro-life views. Since more than 200 practicing psychiatrists with pro-life views have stated that they will never allow anyone an abortion no matter what the law, constitution and Supreme court say, I don't think this amounts to dragging anyone through any mud that the profession has not smeared all over itself already.

Anita Blow

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I did no attribute any malice, just pro-life views. Since more than 200 practicing psychiatrists with pro-life views have stated that they will never allow anyone an abortion no matter what the law, constitution and Supreme court say, I don't think this amounts to dragging anyone through any mud that the profession has not smeared all over itself already.

Do you have a link for the 200 psychiatrists claim? I'm not sure there's even 200 consultant psychiatrists in the country.
A doctor may hold a personal view on a topic, but it does not mean that they form their professional opinion based on that view. As per the IMC, a doctor can decline a particular duty if it goes against their religious/moral beliefs but they are ethically and legally obliged to refer to another doctor who will. For example a GP can refuse to prescribe the pill but they must arrange for the patient to see a GP that will in a timely manner.
That is how personal beliefs are dealt with in the medical profession. A psychiatrist who did not agree with abortion would not be volunteering themselves to assess girls for an abortion and instead would defer to another colleague.

Samaris

RobertKK wrote: »

Please do quote a case in Ireland.

...Really? Savita Hallapanavar is the screamingly obvious one ("is abortion the cure for septicaemia now?" - it is when it's a septic ongoing miscarriage, so let's knock that on the head right-off). Amnesty International was concerned enough about that case that they spoke of it in their report on draconian abortion laws.

Sheila Hodgers died of multiple cancers right after giving birth to her third child. It is alleged that she was refused chemotherapy treatment on the basis on the law. If that sounds insane and unlikely, it happened only a few years ago in the Dominican Republic to a 16-yr-old girl. ("Esperanacita") And yes, because it's apparently the most important thing, the baby died straight after birth.

If I was allowed go into cases from other countries, I would rapidly run out of space. How many cases of women dying do we need in Ireland before it's considered a bit on the high side?

Zubeneschamali

Anita Blow wrote: »

Do you have a link for the 200 psychiatrists claim? I'm not sure there's even 200 consultant psychiatrists in the country.
A doctor may hold a personal view on a topic, but it does not mean that they form their professional opinion based on that view.

https://twitter.com/Luighseach/status/650344477400387584

Boggy Turf

When will this dysfunctional country escape the dark ages with their attitude to women and children? I still blame those weirdos in the Vatican and the flock that still listen to them. We are making progress but it's painfully slow.

RobertKK

Samaris wrote: »

...Really? Savita Hallapanavar is the screamingly obvious one ("is abortion the cure for septicaemia now?" - it is when it's a septic ongoing miscarriage, so let's knock that on the head right-off). Amnesty International was concerned enough about that case that they spoke of it in their report on draconian abortion laws.

Sheila Hodgers died of multiple cancers right after giving birth to her third child. It is alleged that she was refused chemotherapy treatment on the basis on the law. If that sounds insane and unlikely, it happened only a few years ago in the Dominican Republic to a 16-yr-old girl. ("Esperanacita") And yes, because it's apparently the most important thing, the baby died straight after birth.

If I was allowed go into cases from other countries, I would rapidly run out of space. How many cases of women dying do we need in Ireland before it's considered a bit on the high side?

Savita got a strain of E coli ESBL that is specific to India.
http://aac.asm.org/content/54/9/3564.full

It has a high mortality rate.
Infection is a major cause of miscarriage: http://whatcauses.blogspot.ie/2013/09/what-causes-miscarriages-in-early-pregnancy.html

So given the hospital were very slow to diagnose the e coli ESBL which is highly resistant to antibiotics, would an abortion have treated the infection which most likely caused the miscarriage?
People have used this woman to promote abortion when medical negligence -slow to diagnose the infection and treat the infection.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/savitas-death-is-not-about-abortion-it-is-about-medical-negligence-247993.html

btw Amnesty International are a joke of an organisation.

Zubeneschamali

RobertKK wrote: »

would an abortion have treated the infection which most likely caused the miscarriage?

Not sure what that sentence is supposed to mean, but if you are asking would she be alive today if she got an abortion when needed, then medical opinion is Yes:

HSE Report:
Key Causal Factor 2:
Failure to offer all management options to a patient experiencing inevitable miscarriage of an early second trimester pregnancy where the risk to the mother increased with time from the time that membranes were ruptured.

Inquest: Dr Peter Boylan said it was his view that the 31-year-old would be alive today if a termination had been carried out earlier, but this was not a practical proposition because of the law.

MrPudding

Murrisk wrote: »

Sweet jebus. Manslaughter is a more spur of the moment decision and is not premeditated, yes. Mansalughter verdicts are given when it can be shown that it wasn't planned. But in the moment, the person still intentionally ends a life. I just cannot see how you see manslaughter as analogous to miscarriage. Like... what?

Whilst I don't agree with his overall idea, he is actually right on this point. Pre-meditation is a thing in the USA, but not quite so much in Ireland and the UK. I mention the UK as the homicide laws in Ireland are based on and influenced by those laws in English law.

The key factor in Ireland is intent. I don't know the exact wording in Irish law, it in English law it is the intent to "cause death or really serious harm". So if you intended to kill someone or to cause them GBH, and they died, then the "mens rea" for murder is present. There does not need to be pre-meditation, though pre-meditation is an indication that there is intent.

A spur of the moment heat of argument death can still be murder. All it need is intent behind that action that caused the death.

MrP

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

Savita got a strain of E coli ESBL that is specific to India.
http://aac.asm.org/content/54/9/3564.full

It has a high mortality rate.
Infection is a major cause of miscarriage: http://whatcauses.blogspot.ie/2013/09/what-causes-miscarriages-in-early-pregnancy.html

So given the hospital were very slow to diagnose the e coli ESBL which is highly resistant to antibiotics, would an abortion have treated the infection which most likely caused the miscarriage?
People have used this woman to promote abortion when medical negligence -slow to diagnose the infection and treat the infection.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/savitas-death-is-not-about-abortion-it-is-about-medical-negligence-247993.html

So two points then:
1) This is the problem with a law based on restricting access instead of allowing it : every hour counts in treating sepsis. So if she had had a termination when she asked, she'd have had a better chance of surviving than by having to wait to develop symptoms. In fact I believe that was Peter Boykan's conclusion : he said that when she had developed sepsis it may already have been too late.

But it's directly due to the 8th amendment that it's required to wait until doctors (possibly) notice the symptoms of sepsis.

2) Irish women are expected to believe that the same negligent doctors will be paying enough attention to take action at exactly that point at which their lives and not "just" their health is in danger. That's a lot harder to identify than sepsis. No other countries expect their medical staff to do that.

Do you agree that if Savita's death was due to negligence, that leaves questions over why we choose to leave such decisions to doctors instead of the the woman whose life is involved, the way they do everywhere else?

btw Amnesty International are a joke of an organisation.

It's not just Amnesty though is it? Can you name a single non religious human rights organization which has praised Ireland's position on abortion?

volchitsa

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Not sure what that sentence is supposed to mean, but if you are asking would she be alive today if she got an abortion when needed, then medical opinion is Yes:

HSE Report:
Key Causal Factor 2:
Failure to offer all management options to a patient experiencing inevitable miscarriage of an early second trimester pregnancy where the risk to the mother increased with time from the time that membranes were ruptured.

Inquest: Dr Peter Boylan said it was his view that the 31-year-old would be alive today if a termination had been carried out earlier, but this was not a practical proposition because of the law.

Oops. Sorry, I just noticed you had already replied to this point, and with the appropriate links too. Thanks.