ROSA using Savita...

Zulu

I see ROSA (Socialist Feminist Movement) have put up posters with Savita image in their input to the campaign.


I understood that her family expressly asked that she not be dragged into this. Did they get permission? Or are they being exceptionally obnoxious?


It would be flipping fantastic if this thread could last 3 pages about the topic (use of her image without families consent - if that is indeed the case) before being dragged down the toilet hole of the abortion debate. Here's to hoping...

Franz Von Peppercorn

ROSA are a major problem for yes.

vgf1995

Zulu wrote: »

I see ROSA (Socialist Feminist Movement) have put up posters with Savita image in their input to the campaign.


I understood that her family expressly asked that she not be dragged into this. Did they get permission? Or are they being exceptionally obnoxious?


It would be flipping fantastic if this thread could last 3 pages about the topic (use of her image without families consent - if that is indeed the case) before being dragged down the toilet hole of the abortion debate. Here's to hoping...

A quick google will tell you that her father gave permission for her image to be used...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/savita-halappanavar-s-father-urges-yes-vote-in-abortion-referendum-1.3457368

seamus

Savita's family expressly gave permission for her image to be used in support of a Yes vote.

However, the main Yes campaign have declined to do so out of respect.

Zulu

seamus wrote: »

Savita's family expressly gave permission for her image to be used in support of a Yes vote.

However, the main Yes campaign have declined to do so out of respect.

Cool thanks. I thought I heard on one of the debates that the husband had ask for her not to be used. Seems I heard wrong!

I see its the father in the IT article above. I take it then that the husband and father are on the same page? (or could that be part of the reason the Yes campaign are refraining out of respect?)

Zulu

vgf1995 wrote: »

A quick google will tell you that her father gave permission for her image to be used...

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/savita-halappanavar-s-father-urges-yes-vote-in-abortion-referendum-1.3457368

Well actually a quick google gave me nothing, hence the thread. Perhaps if I'd googled for longer I might have gotten to your link.

seamus

Zulu wrote: »

Cool thanks. I thought I heard on one of the debates that the husband had ask for her not to be used. Seems I heard wrong!

I see its the father in the IT article above. I take it then that the husband and father are on the same page? (or could that be part of the reason the Yes campaign are refraining out of respect?)

My understanding is that the husband has made a decision to just put it behind him and move on, so he's not gotten involved. He's emigrated to the US permanently. This was partially a work decision and partially because he received a significant amount of racist hate mail.

DickSwiveller

What do you expect from a bunch of hard left fanatics?

jaykay74

seamus wrote: »

Savita's family expressly gave permission for her image to be used in support of a Yes vote.

However, the main Yes campaign have declined to do so out of respect.

DickSwiveller wrote: »

What do you expect from a bunch of hard left fanatics?

vicwatson

seamus wrote: »

My understanding is that the husband has made a decision to just put it behind him and move on, so he's not gotten involved. He's emigrated to the US permanently. This was partially a work decision and partially because he received a significant amount of racist hate mail.

Source?

Zulu

seamus wrote: »

... racist hate mail.

Jesus



Where is there so many jerks?

Zulu

vicwatson wrote: »

Source?

You want a source for "his understanding"??

Really???

DickSwiveller

jaykay74 wrote: »

The Rosa nuts are deliberately lying.

jaykay74

DickSwiveller wrote: »

The Rosa nuts are deliberately lying.

about having permission to use her image you mean ?

Dial Hard

DickSwiveller wrote: »

The Rosa nuts are deliberately lying.

About what?

DickSwiveller

Dial Hard wrote: »

About what?

About the Savita case. It's been shown over and over that she wasn't a victim of our laws but these people are still willing to lie about it.

jaykay74

DickSwiveller wrote: »

About the Savita case. It's been shown over and over that she wasn't a victim of our laws but these people are still willing to lie about it.

This thread is about the consent of her family to use her image though. Whats your opinion on that ?

OP It would be flipping fantastic if this thread could last 3 pages about the topic (use of her image without families consent - if that is indeed the case) before being dragged down the toilet hole of the abortion debate.

Ash.J.Williams

Zulu wrote: »

I see ROSA (Socialist Feminist Movement) have put up posters with Savita image in their input to the campaign.


I understood that her family expressly asked that she not be dragged into this. Did they get permission? Or are they being exceptionally obnoxious?


It would be flipping fantastic if this thread could last 3 pages about the topic (use of her image without families consent - if that is indeed the case) before being dragged down the toilet hole of the abortion debate. Here's to hoping...

same can be said about downes syndrome and the NO campaign

Ash.J.Williams

DickSwiveller wrote: »

About the Savita case. It's been shown over and over that she wasn't a victim of our laws but these people are still willing to lie about it.

a nurse did tell her "this is a catholic country" she regrets it now but she said it...

Ash.J.Williams

DickSwiveller wrote: »

About the Savita case. It's been shown over and over that she wasn't a victim of our laws but these people are still willing to lie about it.

are you conservative about abortion but cool with dickswiviling?

DickSwiveller

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

are you conservative about abortion but cool with dickswiviling?

I suppose you're trying to be funny. Dick Swiveller is a character from a Dickens book, The Old Curiousity shop. I've no interest in Dick Swivelling

DickSwiveller

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

a nurse did tell her "this is a catholic country" she regrets it now but she said it...

So what? Nothing to do with my point.

jaykay74

DickSwiveller wrote: »

So what? Nothing to do with my point.

So what is your point in relation to the use of the image which is what this thread is about ? Do you think the family consent to its use or not ?

wexie

Zulu wrote: »

Jesus



Where is there so many jerks?

Plenty of em right here on our beloved boards

seamus

vicwatson wrote: »

Source?

http://www.thejournal.ie/praveen-halappanavar-receiving-abusive-letters-from-campaigners-977966-Jul2013/

SusieBlue

DickSwiveller wrote: »

So what? Nothing to do with my point.

She said it when she was denying Savita's request for an abortion.
If she had been granted this abortion when she asked, her baby wouldn't have stayed inside her for a whole extra week slowly dying, it wouldn't have poisoned her, she wouldn't have developed sepsis, and she wouldn't have died.

"This is a catholic country" is very relevant.

groovyg

seamus wrote: »

My understanding is that the husband has made a decision to just put it behind him and move on, so he's not gotten involved. He's emigrated to the US permanently. This was partially a work decision and partially because he received a significant amount of racist hate mail.

There are still racist undertones when her name is mentioned now, you could see it on Claire Byrne car crash debate the other night when her name was mentioned there was jeering from the audience. Considering the audience was made up of doctors, lawyers, TDs as well as bereaved parents and others I don't see anything funny about somebody dying from a septic miscarriage in fact I think its quiet scary because miscarriage should be straight forward enough to treat.

Zulu

groovyg wrote: »

There are still racist undertones when her name is mentioned now, you could see it on Claire Byrne...

Really? Racist undertones?? Can you explain this a bit more please? I didnt pick that up and it's a fairly serious assertion.

SusieBlue

Zulu wrote: »

Really? Racist undertones?? Can you explain this a bit more please? I didnt pick that up and it's a fairly serious assertion.

While I can't say if it was race related, I did find the jeering and sneering from supposedly professional members of the audience when her name was mentioned to be in very poor taste.

I can see why there is a difference of opinion in whether people believe the 8th is to blame for her death, but it cannot be denied it had a hand in her death.

I can understand that some people blame medical negligence, and that's fine, once we acknowledge that the medical negligence couldn't have occurred if she had been granted an abortion when she requested on.

This arrogant full flair dismissal of the 8th having any connection at all with her death is disgusting, misleading, and disrespectful.
Not to mention the noise from the audience when the matter was raised.

I think people forget that she was a real person with a real family who love her (and who all, incidentally, blame the 8th for her death) and the lack of consideration for that is disgraceful.

One eyed Jack

SusieBlue wrote: »

She said it when she was denying Savita's request for an abortion.
If she had been granted this abortion when she asked, her baby wouldn't have stayed inside her for a whole extra week slowly dying, it wouldn't have poisoned her, she wouldn't have developed sepsis, and she wouldn't have died.

"This is a catholic country" is very relevant.

Anyone can develop sepsis?

People who have surgery are particularly at risk (though the incidences of sepsis are higher in males), and it's actually rife in Irish hospitals (a rise of 67% between 2011-2016). I'd consider that a far more relevant contributing factor in her death than one of the medical teams personal opinions.

As regards the topic of the thread itself, I don't see any reason why a campaign group shouldn't use a public figure to convey their message, in the same way as I don't see any reason why a campaign group shouldn't use children with disabilities to convey their message. I don't agree with the idea that any campaign group should capitulate to the wishes of people who claim to represent the people they represent.

If everyone were held to that standard, neither side could say anything, which might not be such a bad thing either I suppose... :pac:

SusieBlue

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Anyone can develop sepsis?

People who have surgery are particularly at risk (though the incidences of sepsis are higher in males), and it's actually rife in Irish hospitals (a rise of 67% between 2011-2016). I'd consider that a far more relevant contributing factor in her death than one of the medical teams personal opinions.

Her sepsis was caused by her miscarriage. It poisoned her.
If she had been given an abortion when she requested one, she wouldn't have died, because the situation wouldn't have progressed to the point where the baby was poisoning her.

dulpit

It's funny how quickly this has derailed.

Regarding the use of her image, as stated her father has said it's okay. Still seems to me that it's a bit tasteless, and I can see why the main Yes campaign are not using it...

Zulu

SusieBlue wrote: »

While I can't say if it was race related, I did find the jeering and sneering from supposedly professional members of the audience when her name was mentioned to be in very poor taste.

The jeering and sneering was throughout that debate and not exclusively when she was mentioned, so I'm inclined to believe it had nothing to do with race at all.

This arrogant full flair dismissal of the 8th having any connection at all with her death is disgusting, misleading, and disrespectful.

Yeah, that's all fairly loaded language you're using there. I'm not inclined to believe the 8th was the root cause of what happened that poor woman, but whatever, it was a disgrace her treatment during and after.

Zulu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't see any reason why a campaign group shouldn't use a public figure to convey their message

Ah but in fairness, ordinarily a "public figure" is someone who courts the media and profits from it somehow, she didn't. She was forced (for want of a better word) to be a "public figure" through tragedy.



I dont think its the same...

SusieBlue

Zulu wrote: »

The jeering and sneering was throughout that debate and not exclusively when she was mentioned, so I'm inclined to believe it had nothing to do with race at all.

I agree, it was rife on both sides for the whole debate, I just thought a bit of consideration for the woman might not have gone amiss and they could have stayed quiet and not resorted to panto tactics while her case was being discussed.

Yeah, that's all fairly loaded language you're using there. I'm not inclined to believe the 8th was the root cause of what happened that poor woman, but whatever, it was a disgrace her treatment during and after.

I'd actually disagree with that, I think the 8th was the root cause of her death, but ultimately, it cannot be denied that the medical mismanagement cost her her life. Both were at play.
I just think its disingenuous to state the 8th had nothing at all to do with it when it was at the very, very least it was a contributing factor.

One eyed Jack

SusieBlue wrote: »

Her sepsis was caused by her miscarriage. It poisoned her.
If she had been given an abortion when she requested one

That would have constituted abortion on demand, the very thing which the Yes campaign are suggesting won't happen if their campaign is successful. Second of all, even under the proposed legislation, at 17 weeks pregnant, she still wouldn't have been granted a termination of her pregnancy just because she requested it, as she was beyond the 12 weeks proposed.

she wouldn't have died, because the situation wouldn't have progressed to the point where the baby was poisoning her.

And that's exactly what we'll never know, and you couldn't possibly know. There are an infinite number of possibilities that could have led to an infinite number of outcomes, but you're purposely choosing to go with the one that suits your agenda, and that's fine, but the outcome of that choice, is that people are going to point out the obvious flaws in your argument.

SusieBlue

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That would have constituted abortion on demand, the very thing which the Yes campaign are suggesting won't happen if their campaign is successful. Second of all, even under the proposed legislation, at 17 weeks pregnant, she still wouldn't have been granted a termination of her pregnancy just because she requested it, as she was beyond the 12 weeks proposed..

Savita didn't want an abortion, she wanted a baby.

She was miscarrying and was hospitalised for a whole week before she died. She had already been told that her pregnancy wasn't viable but was made wait for nature to take its course with no medical intervention.
She requested an abortion at the beginning of the week, when she was first hospitalised, when they were certain there was no hope for her baby.
She was told "This is a Catholic country".
She wanted to speed up the inevitable. She wanted to begin grieving for her lost child.
Keeping her there for a week while her baby slowly died was in itself a cruelty.

That absolutely would not have been a case of abortion on demand. It would be a case of speeding up the inevitable and allowing a couple to grieve, instead of making her sit in hospital for a week slowly miscarrying.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that's exactly what we'll never know, and you couldn't possibly know. There are an infinite number of possibilities that could have led to an infinite number of outcomes, but you're purposely choosing to go with the one that suits your agenda, and that's fine, but the outcome of that choice, is that people are going to point out the obvious flaws in your argument.

Not just my opinion and my agenda, but also the opinion of the doctor who chaired the independent investigation into her death, Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran.

He said:

"She did have sepsis. However, if she had a termination in the first days as requested, she would not have had sepsis. If she had the termination when asked for it, the sepsis would not arise.

"We would never have heard of her and she would be alive today," he said.

One eyed Jack

I think SB rather than derail the thread any further, I'll just agree with you on this much -

SusieBlue wrote: »

ultimately, it cannot be denied that the medical mismanagement cost her her life.

drunkmonkey

She died from mis management of Sepsis, this is killing Irish people every day in hospitals and it's not being recorded properly.
http://www.thejournal.ie/sepsis-awareness-killer-3828626-Feb2018/

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

That's the second time today I've seen people with the impression that her family requested her image not be used, where is that coming from? No campaign does have form, a lot of it, for just straight up lying and repeating it until it seeps in to people's minds but I wonder where they managed to slip that one in?

SusieBlue

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think SB rather than derail the thread any further, I'll just agree with you on this much -

Yes, and the 8th undoubtedly had a hand in that mismanagement.

One eyed Jack

Jace Flabby Lawn wrote: »

That's the second time today I've seen people with the impression that her family requested her image not be used, where is that coming from? No campaign does have form, a lot of it, for just straight up lying and repeating it until it seeps in to people's minds but I wonder where they managed to slip that one in?

It's likely coming from a place of a new attempt to clamour for the moral high ground in the kind of tactics that both sides are using.

I'm equally as dismissive of the Yes campaigns slogans like "Stop shaming women" and "Trust women" as equally disingenuous and accusatory as anything the No side has come up with. My immediate gut reaction is to say "I do trust women, I've never shamed women, so what the hell are they talking about?" If anything in my experience at least, it's actually been women who don't trust other women, and women who shame other women, and that's for a variety of reasons, not just for where they stand on the issue of abortion.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's likely coming from a place of a new attempt to clamour for the moral high ground in the kind of tactics that both sides are using.

I'm equally as dismissive of the Yes campaigns slogans like "Stop shaming women" and "Trust women" as equally disingenuous and accusatory as anything the No side has come up with. My immediate gut reaction is to say "I do trust women, I've never shamed women, so what the hell are they talking about?" If anything in my experience at least, it's actually been women who don't trust other women, and women who shame other women, and that's for a variety of reasons, not just for where they stand on the issue of abortion.

Yes I'm wondering specifically where it came from rather than the 10,000th "there are bad people on both sides" bit.

One eyed Jack

Jace Flabby Lawn wrote: »

Yes I'm wondering specifically where it came from rather than the 10,000th "there are bad people on both sides" bit.

I think it's fairly obvious how propaganda gets legs on social media.

newport2

Jace Flabby Lawn wrote: »

Yes I'm wondering specifically where it came from rather than the 10,000th "there are bad people on both sides" bit.

I heard Mattie McGrath say it on the Claire Byrne debate on Monday, saying the Yes side were acting against the family's wishes.

drunkmonkey

SusieBlue wrote: »

Yes, and the 8th undoubtedly had a hand in that mismanagement.

No they still don't have a handle on it and it's killing women, men and children right now. It wasn't the 8th.
Give me cancer any day at least you've a sporting chance.

SusieBlue

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No they still don't have a handle on it and it's killing women, men and children right now. It wasn't the 8th.
Give me cancer any day at least you've a sporting chance.

She was denied her request for an abortion on the grounds of the 8th.
If she had been given an abortion, she wouldn't have had the opportunity to develop the sepsis.
Her miscarriage caused the sepsis that ultimately killed her.
It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The 8th had a hand in her death, its indisputable.

drunkmonkey

No bag management of Sepsis killed her. It wasn't spotted in time and at that stage hospitals weren't properly equipped and following best practices and they still aren't today.
I've seen this kill first hand and I'm appaled still years later what's happening in hospitals. It's a f'n disgrace excuse my French.

SusieBlue

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No bag management of Sepsis killed her. It wasn't spotted in time and at that stage hospitals weren't properly equipped and following best practices and they still aren't today.
I've seen this kill first hand and I'm appaled still years later what's happening in hospitals. It's a f'n disgrace excuse my French.

What caused the sepsis?

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

She said it when she was denying Savita's request for an abortion.
If she had been granted this abortion when she asked, her baby wouldn't have stayed inside her for a whole extra week slowly dying, it wouldn't have poisoned her, she wouldn't have developed sepsis, and she wouldn't have died.

"This is a catholic country" is very relevant.

I am surprised a nurse would have the authority to permit or deny abortion.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

What caused the sepsis?

What caused the pregnancy?


OT: I heard a panelist (?) on TV say the family of the poor woman forbidded it.