The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Zerbini Blewitt

Just came across this PrimeTime “debate” in 2013 between a women who had anencephaly detected in her pregnancy and Dr Berry Kiely (long time in PLC).
I saw this at the time it was broadcast and was not well & speechless for the rest of the evening.

I think this demonstrates the almost limitless depths of depravity & inhuman cruelty that can result from ideological beliefs not based on reason.
Or in other words, the beliefs of the average vocal pro-life (forced-birther).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXTEt3KSrYw

Annasopra

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If it doesnt then they are illegal.

Annasopra

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

I am a member of fora in the UK, and many are disappointed that they cannot contribute to YES because they are not citizens or residents of Ireland. I know they can buy stuff to contribute though instead.

I wonder if the same rules apply to the pro birth contributers, anyone know?

SIPO laws apply to everyone.

gmisk

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Just came across this PrimeTime “debate” in 2013 between a women who had anencephaly detected in her pregnancy and Dr Berry Kiely (long time in PLC).
I saw this at the time it was broadcast and was not well & speechless for the rest of the evening.

I think this demonstrates the almost limitless depths of depravity & inhuman cruelty that can result from ideological beliefs not based on reason.
Or in other words, the beliefs of the average vocal pro-life (forced-birther).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXTEt3KSrYw

That was horrendous and not easy to watch...
I just donated a bit more again a couple more posters or flyers hopefully it helps

amdublin

I'm going out on my first canvass today (pro choice). I'm looking forward to getting out there.

I'll let you all know how it goes

Sofiztikated

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

As expected a small element of repeal have resorted to vandalising & Illegally removing no posters in different parts of the country totally anti democratic .

A Twitter account with 22 followers, and 18 tweets since Sep '16.

How in the name of jaysis did you come across that?

Bannasidhe

Sofiztikated wrote: »

A Twitter account with 22 followers, and 18 tweets since Sep '16.

How in the name of jaysis did you come across that?

Paddy Manning told them about it:pac:

petalgumdrops

bubblypop wrote: »

You may need to clarify for me,if you don't mind?
Did you get a ffa diagnosis at 12 weeks & had to wait until 16weeks to find out everything was OK? Or did you have to wait till birth?

Sorry no at 14 weeks CVS gave the diagnosis of ffa. Scan raised alarms that something was not as it should be. It was amnio results at 21/22 weeks that confirmed Baby was unaffected by the placental diagnosis.Geneticist explained it to me that a placental result of say DS would usually be confirmed by an amnio. This was mot the case for me.

kylith

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Sorry no at 14 weeks CVS gave the diagnosis of ffa. Scan raised alarms that something was not as it should be. It was amnio results at 21/22 weeks that confirmed Baby was unaffected by the placental diagnosis.Geneticist explained it to me that a placental result of say DS would usually be confirmed by an amnio. This was mot the case for me.

Wiuld you not have gone for an amnio to be sure? Would you have terminated if you hadn’t?

bertieinexile

JDD
Hi Bertie. ... I'm still waiting.

January
He's waiting on a reply from head office so he can copy and paste it to you.
thanked by
Call me Al, captbarnacles, crustybla, DubInMeath, erica74, Flying Fox, Fred Swanson, Neyite, SusieBlue

Fred Swanson
They are only waking up in their USA headquarters.

applehunter
C'mon Bertie, they're waiting.

It's nice to be back everybody.
My life is just like all of yours. But with things in it.

Narcissus

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Just came across this PrimeTime “debate” in 2013 between a women who had anencephaly detected in her pregnancy and Dr Berry Kiely (long time in PLC).
I saw this at the time it was broadcast and was not well & speechless for the rest of the evening.

I think this demonstrates the almost limitless depths of depravity & inhuman cruelty that can result from ideological beliefs not based on reason.
Or in other words, the beliefs of the average vocal pro-life (forced-birther).

YOUTUBE

B0jangles

bertieinexile wrote: »

It's nice to be back everybody.
My life is just like all of yours. But with things in it.

So, just more weird passive-aggressive insinuations, yeah?

No answers to any of the many questions you've been asked.

mohawk

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXTEt3KSrYw

I remember that. Awful to watch both the lack of empathy and the lies.

Give women and their families a choice. There will not be compulsory abortions for FFA. Some women choose to go through with the pregnancy and others will not.

Bannasidhe

Just flung a few quid there to a student studying in Warsaw to help with the cost of his flights to come home and vote.
Don't know the guy but we share a surname so I thought feck it why not.
And yes, I have seen he is on the register, eligible to vote and normally domiciled in Ireland but currently studying in Poland. He is returning in June once his exams are over.

Just in case anyone wants to get snippy about it.

Shadowstrife

People who say 'Life begins at conception', are essentially saying that one sister is less of a valid human life than her identical twin.

volchitsa

petalgumdrops wrote: »

bubblypop wrote: »

You may need to clarify for me,if you don't mind?
Did you get a ffa diagnosis at 12 weeks & had to wait until 16weeks to find out everything was OK? Or did you have to wait till birth?

Sorry no at 14 weeks CVS gave the diagnosis of ffa. Scan raised alarms that something was not as it should be. It was amnio results at 21/22 weeks that confirmed Baby was unaffected by the placental diagnosis.Geneticist explained it to me that a placental result of say DS would usually be confirmed by an amnio. This was mot the case for me.

It's wonderful that everything was fine in the end, petal gumdrops, but I don't understand what difference you think the 8th made?

You're not seriously suggesting that you would have had a termination without the confirmation, are you?
Nor what difference the 8th made to that decision anyway?

bertieinexile

Hi JDD
Thank you for your patience.

First and foremost let me say that if you are actually looking for an opinion on medical matters from me you have a whole other problem than the one you described in your post.

But I think instead you have a set of circumstances that make this whole debate personal for you in a particular way. And you are interested in how, what you perceive as the other side, respond to the situation you find yourself in. And I think you are doing that with an openness that probably won't be reflected in a lot of the contributions from others to follow.

The most important point of all is that regardless of what goes on in the conjugal bedroom there is no danger to your life or health. You are safe.
You live in a country whose laws and practice result in it being one of the safest places in the world to be pregnant.
Ireland, out of 171 countries surveyed, is consistently ranked by the WHO (World Health Organisation) in the top five countries for women's safety in pregnancy. This has been the case for the past 25 years. In 2005, Ireland was ranked the safest country in the world in which to have a child.

That is the key fact to keep in mind in relation to all attempts to raise health concerns around the treatment of any woman under the 8th amendment.

You describe the condition you are susceptible to, placenta accretia, as very rare. I would guess you are the only one on this thread who knows anything about it. I don't know if even Phoenix Parker has first hand experience of it but if you are going to pick out anything in the torrent to follow Phoenix Parker is probably one worth listening to.

You also say you have only a 0.1% chance of becoming pregnant because you have had a tubal ligation. Figures vary but not by much. Some put the chances at 0.5%. The point is you are extremely unlikely to become pregnant and none of the following in reality applies to you.

You aren't in danger.
And if you still can't shake the last remaining doubts, remember you live in one of the safest countries in the world to be pregnant - even with a susceptibility to placenta accretia.

Placenta accretia occurs when the placenta attaches too deeply in the uterine wall
It is principally associated with women who have had one or more caesareans and or surgical abortions with the risk rising with each one.
Still it is extremely rare, occuring in 1 in 2,500 pregnancies (although this is growing with the increase in caesareans)
The scarring from the procedures mentioned encourages the growth of blood vessels in to the uterine wall.
The treatment is usually termination of pregnancy and hysterectomy. Usually the child has a good to very good chance of survival.

When the patient history suggests a heightened susceptibility, monitoring can begin early in pregnancy and this can involve both targeted ultrasound and MRI.
Most care providers feel it is prudent to have an ultrasound for placental placement at some point if there are risk factors for accretia.
If the condition is identified (and if present it usually is) a non emergency termination can be carried out. Depending on how early this happens the childs prospects can be good to very good.
It is important to note, and seems to be wilfully ignored by some, that our Medical Council guidelines, Section 48, which govern this stipulate that even if a threat to the mother’s life is not immediate or inevitable it can be acted upon and the pregnancy terminated.
We have a number of international studies in which there are no mortalities associated with these non emergency terminations.
There are no mortalities in these cases in Ireland. Which is not a surprise because (a) if there were we would surely be hearing about them now and (b) our laws allow us to be a world leader in obstetric care.

Arguably the 8th amendment is in some part responsible for our superior maternal mortality rates as well as our world leading care during pregnancy. In particular our maternal mortality rates are superior to the uk. Since there is not the easy option of ready abortion here, it compels doctors to monitor pregnancies closely for signs of danger to the mother's life - which inevitably overlaps with dangers to her physical health.

The only reason a woman would be contemplating early abortion on the grounds of placental accretia is that she would have a fear based on her medical history. But that history would mean she would receive early monitoring and she should expect a safe outcome and and a healthy child

But for anyone else worried about this - even if the woman's history is such that these indicators are absent, normal monitoring in Irish hospitals will still detect the condition at a point where emergency caesarean hysterectomy will take place. This is a difficult operation but being in one of the safest countries in the world for birth means that it is always successful. In addition since it happens at around 34 weeks the baby has as good a chance of survival as a full term new born.
A study of the prevalence of placenta accreta using discharge data from Irish hospitals 2005-2010 found 357 cases covering both emergency and nonemergency deliveries and zero mortality rate for mothers.
US studies have found a similar zero mortality rate where caesarean hysterectomy was the principal medical concern.

None of this is to take from the difficulties and trauma many women feel as a result of hysterectomy - the experience itself and the loss of the ability to conceive.

Some on the pro choice side may argue that even though a woman in this situation would have a very good chance of seeing her child grow up and be happy she might prefer to have aborted it
-because the timing was not right for the child she would now have (and she would no longer be in a position to conceive in future)
-because she wanted to avoid the safe but difficult experience described above following early monitoring
-or because she just wanted to.
Even if you believe in an absolute untrammelled choice by a woman, even if you believe there is only one life present here, it has to be recognized that none of these choices are based on trying to avoid a realistic medical danger.

Many others think that a pregnant woman's right to make choices about medical treatment, like anyone's right to make choices about medical treatment, is extremely important but in a case like this it is not absolute.
These people feel that there is a second life involved in this decision. And they feel the freedom to make the choices outlined above does not balance and does not respect the right to life of that child

How many feel this way? There is going to be a vote on it.

But for for anyone to say that the woman in this case is being put in danger by the 8th amendment would be, to borrow a phrase, pro choice scare tactics.


There's a reason why this is one of the safest countries in the world in which to be pregnant.
How would that be the case if our laws were putting women in danger.
Our laws allow us to be a world leader in obstetric care.


I would be very interested JDD to hear how both you and Phoenix Parker view the points above. The rest of the medical opinions we're about to be offered, to quote Borat, "not so much".

It goes without saying that these are questions for your doctor. Like I said at the start, I think I understand why you are asking a question here and what kind of answer you are looking for, but I still feel really uncomfortable discussing something as personal as this. That could just be me; before everyone got smartphones it seemed like all you ever heard upstairs on a bus was people discussing their medical histories. But it's how I feel. If you're the same then feel free to drop out of this discussion any time you want. Totally understandable.

Zerbini Blewitt

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Just came across this PrimeTime “debate” in 2013 between a women who had anencephaly detected in her pregnancy and Dr Berry Kiely (long time in PLC).
I saw this at the time it was broadcast and was not well & speechless for the rest of the evening.

I think this demonstrates the almost limitless depths of depravity & inhuman cruelty that can result from ideological beliefs not based on reason.
Or in other words, the beliefs of the average vocal pro-life (forced-birther).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXTEt3KSrYw

I tend not to bother watching debates, & I am out of the country so don't see too much about this referendum, thankfully!!
Decided to watch to see if I could see from a pro life pov.
That woman was terrible! She also said Malta & Poland are countries that don't respect life?? Like WTF?
Fair play to the poor mother sitting there, I don't think I would have been so calm if it was me!

B0jangles

Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »

Just came across this PrimeTime “debate” in 2013 between a women who had anencephaly detected in her pregnancy and Dr Berry Kiely (long time in PLC).
I saw this at the time it was broadcast and was not well & speechless for the rest of the evening.

I think this demonstrates the almost limitless depths of depravity & inhuman cruelty that can result from ideological beliefs not based on reason.
Or in other words, the beliefs of the average vocal pro-life (forced-birther).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXTEt3KSrYw

Horrible, horrible stuff - Imagine saying such implacably cruel things directly to a person who's actually experienced having a child with a FFA? .

I've noticed that there is a common tendency among these types to adopt a very mild, sweet, calm voice - maybe it helps distract the listener from the awfulness of what is being said?

Breda O'Brien does exactly the same thing.

gmisk

amdublin wrote: »

I'm going out on my first canvass today (pro choice). I'm looking forward to getting out there.

I'll let you all know how it goes

Terrific hope it goes well

B0jangles

bertieinexile wrote: »

Hi JDD
Thank you for your patience.

First and foremost let me say that if you are actually looking for an opinion on medical matters from me you have a whole other problem than the one you described in your post.

But I think instead you have a set of circumstances that make this whole debate personal for you in a particular way. And you are interested in how, what you perceive as the other side, respond to the situation you find yourself in. And I think you are doing that with an openness that probably won't be reflected in a lot of the contributions from others to follow.

The most important point of all is that regardless of what goes on in the conjugal bedroom there is no danger to your life or health. You are safe.
You live in a country whose laws and practice result in it being one of the safest places in the world to be pregnant.
Ireland, out of 171 countries surveyed, is consistently ranked by the WHO (World Health Organisation) in the top five countries for women's safety in pregnancy. This has been the case for the past 25 years. In 2005, Ireland was ranked the safest country in the world in which to have a child.

That is the key fact to keep in mind in relation to all attempts to raise health concerns around the treatment of any woman under the 8th amendment.

You describe the condition you are susceptible to, placenta accretia, as very rare. I would guess you are the only one on this thread who knows anything about it. I don't know if even Phoenix Parker has first hand experience of it but if you are going to pick out anything in the torrent to follow Phoenix Parker is probably one worth listening to.

You also say you have only a 0.1% chance of becoming pregnant because you have had a tubal ligation. Figures vary but not by much. Some put the chances at 0.5%. The point is you are extremely unlikely to become pregnant and none of the following in reality applies to you.

You aren't in danger.
And if you still can't shake the last remaining doubts, remember you live in one of the safest countries in the world to be pregnant - even with a susceptibility to placenta accretia.

Placenta accretia occurs when the placenta attaches too deeply in the uterine wall
It is principally associated with women who have had one or more caesareans and or surgical abortions with the risk rising with each one.
Still it is extremely rare, occuring in 1 in 2,500 pregnancies (although this is growing with the increase in caesareans)
The scarring from the procedures mentioned encourages the growth of blood vessels in to the uterine wall.
The treatment is usually termination of pregnancy and hysterectomy. Usually the child has a good to very good chance of survival.

When the patient history suggests a heightened susceptibility, monitoring can begin early in pregnancy and this can involve both targeted ultrasound and MRI.
Most care providers feel it is prudent to have an ultrasound for placental placement at some point if there are risk factors for accretia.
If the condition is identified (and if present it usually is) a non emergency termination can be carried out. Depending on how early this happens the childs prospects can be good to very good.
It is important to note, and seems to be wilfully ignored by some, that our Medical Council guidelines, Section 48, which govern this stipulate that even if a threat to the mother’s life is not immediate or inevitable it can be acted upon and the pregnancy terminated.
We have a number of international studies in which there are no mortalities associated with these non emergency terminations.
There are no mortalities in these cases in Ireland. Which is not a surprise because (a) if there were we would surely be hearing about them now and (b) our laws allow us to be a world leader in obstetric care.

Arguably the 8th amendment is in some part responsible for our superior maternal mortality rates as well as our world leading care during pregnancy. In particular our maternal mortality rates are superior to the uk. Since there is not the easy option of ready abortion here, it compels doctors to monitor pregnancies closely for signs of danger to the mother's life - which inevitably overlaps with dangers to her physical health.

The only reason a woman would be contemplating early abortion on the grounds of placental accretia is that she would have a fear based on her medical history. But that history would mean she would receive early monitoring and she should expect a safe outcome and and a healthy child

But for anyone else worried about this - even if the woman's history is such that these indicators are absent, normal monitoring in Irish hospitals will still detect the condition at a point where emergency caesarean hysterectomy will take place. This is a difficult operation but being in one of the safest countries in the world for birth means that it is always successful. In addition since it happens at around 34 weeks the baby has as good a chance of survival as a full term new born.
A study of the prevalence of placenta accreta using discharge data from Irish hospitals 2005-2010 found 357 cases covering both emergency and nonemergency deliveries and zero mortality rate for mothers.
US studies have found a similar zero mortality rate where caesarean hysterectomy was the principal medical concern.

None of this is to take from the difficulties and trauma many women feel as a result of hysterectomy - the experience itself and the loss of the ability to conceive.

Some on the pro choice side may argue that even though a woman in this situation would have a very good chance of seeing her child grow up and be happy she might prefer to have aborted it
-because the timing was not right for the child she would now have (and she would no longer be in a position to conceive in future)
-because she wanted to avoid the safe but difficult experience described above following early monitoring
-or because she just wanted to.
Even if you believe in an absolute untrammelled choice by a woman, even if you believe there is only one life present here, it has to be recognized that none of these choices are based on trying to avoid a realistic medical danger.

Many others think that a pregnant woman's right to make choices about medical treatment, like anyone's right to make choices about medical treatment, is extremely important but in a case like this it is not absolute.
These people feel that there is a second life involved in this decision. And they feel the freedom to make the choices outlined above does not balance and does not respect the right to life of that child

How many feel this way? There is going to be a vote on it.

But for for anyone to say that the woman in this case is being put in danger by the 8th amendment would be, to borrow a phrase, pro choice scare tactics.


There's a reason why this is one of the safest countries in the world in which to be pregnant.
How would that be the case if our laws were putting women in danger.
Our laws allow us to be a world leader in obstetric care.


I would be very interested JDD to hear how both you and Phoenix Parker view the points above. The rest of the medical opinions we're about to be offered, to quote Borat, "not so much".

It goes without saying that these are questions for your doctor. Like I said at the start, I think I understand why you are asking a question here and what kind of answer you are looking for, but I still feel really uncomfortable discussing something as personal as this. That could just be me; before everyone got smartphones it seemed like all you ever heard upstairs on a bus was people discussing their medical histories. But it's how I feel. If you're the same then feel free to drop out of this discussion any time you want. Totally understandable.

That appears to be an extraordinarily long-winded attempt to avoid actually answering the questions you were asked.

petalgumdrops

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Sorry no at 14 weeks CVS gave the diagnosis of ffa. Scan raised alarms that something was not as it should be. It was amnio results at 21/22 weeks that confirmed Baby was unaffected by the placental diagnosis.Geneticist explained it to me that a placental result of say DS would usually be confirmed by an amnio. This was mot the case for me.

That must have been a terrible time for you, and it is great everything worked out well.
but with respect, I think your baby is alive thanks to you. You & the doctors.

Bertie is back & he said you will be grand JDD, so good news!!

Any chance of answering any other questions put to ya Bertie?

Ken.

Mod-Ok folks, This has been a fairly good thread for the last week or 2 but the personal jibes are starting to reappear. We don't want to ban people but if it comes to it we will (We here at AH towers are equal opportunities mods, we don't ban one side or the other, we ban asreholes)

Please be civil to each other. After this vote is over no matter what way it turns out we all still have to live on this little rock.

petalgumdrops

kylith wrote: »

Wiuld you not have gone for an amnio to be sure? Would you have terminated if you hadn’t?

Geneticist stated that most people he saw will terminate will do so on the basis of a CVS and will not do an amnio due to the fact that by the time results are through a woman will be 20/22 weeks. After CVS results yes I would have terminated - worst case scenario was put in front of me. I remember asking if my baby's condition was like Edwards or Pataus and I was told "worse" difference with my issue was there was only one piece of medical literature related to the trisomy available so they couldn't even tell me what to expect. So yes I did want to terminate but it was not available to me. I stated ffa as something we shouldn't be voting on that it should be dealt with in our maternity hospitals here in Ireland. I know what I went through was horrific but there are people who travel because they "choos to and there are those who don't travel simply because they can't. I didn't choose not to terminate it was not available to me.

petalgumdrops

volchitsa wrote: »

It's wonderful that everything was fine in the end, petal gumdrops, but I don't understand what difference you think the 8th made?

You're not seriously suggesting that you would have had a termination without the confirmation, are you?
Nor what difference the 8th made to that decision anyway?

If you collected data on ffa you will see that a CVS has been used to terminate on the basis of ffa. CVS collects placental cells that are ***in most cases*** a match for DNA of a baby but placental mosasacisms do happen. I'm not sure if you are suggesting that all ffa should need an CVS and an amnio to teterminate for a ffa

Say this was different and I came here after my CVS and told you I had to travel to England to terminate my baby would you be saying the 8th had no affect on me at all. No you would use my story to higlight the narrative that the 8th has deterimental consequences for women. (It of course does) but I find it disrespectful to assume that the 8th can't have any positive outcomes at all. My son is proof of that. Yet it is being overlooked that yes I did want to terminate based on CVS but I did not bave the option. You seem to assume my son is here due to choice not because I did not have access to a termination.

Bannasidhe

petalgumdrops wrote: »

Geneticist stated that most people he saw will terminate will do so on the basis of a CVS and will not do an amnio due to the fact that by the time results are through a woman will be 20/22 weeks. After CVS results yes I would have terminated - worst case scenario was put in front of me. I remember asking if my baby's condition was like Edwards or Pataus and I was told "worse" difference with my issue was there was only one piece of medical literature related to the trisomy available so they couldn't even tell me what to expect. So yes I did want to terminate but it was not available to me. I stated ffa as something we shouldn't be voting on that it should be dealt with in our maternity hospitals here in Ireland. I know what I went through was horrific but there are people who travel because they "choos to and there are those who don't travel simply because they can't. I didn't choose not to terminate it was not available to me.

With respect, it was available to you, but would have required you to travel.
As it currently is available to women who have an absolute certain diagnosis as long as they can travel.

A NO vote will continue to force women to either continue with a pregnancy in which there is no possible good outcome or endure that heartbreaking journey.

Why on Earth would anyone want to inflict that on someone who is already suffering?

Martina1991

petalgumdrops wrote:

After CVS results yes I would have terminated - worst case scenario was put in front of me. I remember asking if my baby's condition was like Edwards or Pataus and I was told "worse" difference with my issue was there was only one piece of medical literature related to the trisomy available so they couldn't even tell me what to expect. So yes I did want to terminate but it was not available to me. I stated ffa as something we shouldn't be voting on that it should be dealt with in our maternity hospitals here in Ireland.

I'm delighted for you that your child was healthy. Doctors are wrong all the time. Such is the need for further confirmatory testing.

But you said you would have terminated if it was was FFA. If it was FFA you wouldn't have been able to terminate and you would have to deal with the trauma of having a baby born that would have died of been severely disabled.

There are many women who are given the same news as you, the testing, the waiting. But they didn't get good news. Their diagnosis was correct and they had to and will have to suffer the consequences of the 8th amendment.

They have to continue with their pregnancy against their will. They don't have a choice.

Ken.

Mod request-Can someone please post a quick simple explanation of what CVS is. A google search just leads to some online American Chemist chain.

Sofiztikated

Conspectus wrote: »

Mod request-Can someone please post a quick simple explanation of what CVS is. A google search just leads to some online American Chemist chain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorionic_villus_sampling