ROSA using Savita...

DickSwiveller

"Socialist Feminist Movement"

Christ, sounds terrifying

One eyed Jack

daithi84 wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/eighth-amendment-played-major-role-in-savita-s-death-1.3261037

In any other country the dying fetus would of been removed ASAP to reduce the risk of sepsis.

Well that's certainly not true for a start.

She was left in agony for 3 days with an open cervix as the fetus still had a heartbeat. Doctors could not intervene until here life was in immediate danger. She then developed sepsis, the sepsis was mismanaged and she died. Cause of death was sepsis, source of sepsis was a dying fetus which was not removed as per best medical practice due to the 8th amendment.

Source of sepsis was actually an infection, which can happen in any hospital in the world, but since 2011 has seen a 75% increase in Irish hospitals in particular. If Ms. Halappanavar hadn't died, we would be none the wiser as to the circumstances surrounding her death. Because she died, her death has been used as an example to further all sorts of political and social agendas since then.

Zulu

Jesus not again...

DickSwiveller

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.

How was she not a victim of our laws? Genuine question

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

How was she not a victim of our laws? Genuine question

Nevermind, caught up on the thread

vicwatson

Zulu wrote: »

You want a source for "his understanding"??

Really???

What’s unreasonable about that???

Nesta99

SusieBlue wrote: »

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.

There was absolutely no reason not to expidite the spontaneous abortion and was part of the mismanagment of the Savita case. It was a clinical decision that was in error. Those same clinical errors would likely have happened reardless of the law and not because of the law. There is no excuse for not understanding the law by healthcare professionals no matter how limitited the law is(suicide included from 1992). No doctor has ever been charged or struck for putting mother before pregnancy as a part of a clinical decision that saves the mother's life at any stage of complications resulting from dual-life situations; Decisions that probably happen daily nationwide but not heard of because the patient/mother was treated properly and with succesful outcome for the mother (but not always the pregnancy/dual-life) .

Erythromycin would likely have been the prophylatic go to antibiotic administered if the termination had been expidited wouldnt have treated the infection (that triggered the spontaneous abortion initially) as per the microbiology results. The infection was a resistant ESBL that would have needed targeting by one of the 'Cef' antibiotics. Sadly similar cases have happened in countries where the laws were less ambiguous and as a result the clinical mismanagement was the focus rather than legal ambiguity legit or ortherwise in this case. This isn't advocating either a yes or no vote!!! Its is simply that Savita Halappanavar should have recieved appropriate antibiotics in a timely manner regardless of the pregnancy. If by some lucky chance she had recieved the necessary antibiotic treatment prior to contracting chorioamnionitis she may not have gone in to a spontaneous abortion. When she was miscarrying and requested that the termination be expidited there should not have been an issue as protocols allowed for this to happen. The delay in her treatment was not due to the pregnancy but due to inadaquate care. The journalist Kitty Holland, who broke the story in 2012 had this to say-

'Too many clinicians did not recognise, note or communicate to the correct colleague how gravely her condition was deteriorating. By the time her consultant obstetrician diagnosed a serious infection of the amniotic fluid and the membranes around the fetus she had a temperature of 39 degrees, a pulse of 150bpm and blood pressure of 30/60. She was finally taken to theatre for an abortion, more than two days after she first asked for one – where she spontaneously delivered a girl, who died. Four days later, at 1.09am on Sunday 28th, her body having been engulfed by sepsis, she died, too'.

Kitty Holland is a strong advocate for a Yes vote, acknowledges the clinical mismanagement and also feels that the delay in treatment was due to the pregnancy. Nobody bar the people managing this medical case really know for certain if this is the case as another major flaw in Savita's care was inadaquate notes on her file. If they had delayed agressive treatment of an identified infection from the beginning due to the medical and legal complications of the pregnancy this should have been noted and it wasnt.

Again I'm not saying any of this as part of an agenda for or against repeal simply that it isnt as straight forward as earlier expiditing termination = a life saved. The clinical staff failed to recognise how ill she was with an infection regardless, at any point of her care until it was too late. This isnt uncommon unbelievably and in patients who were not pregnant or men either. Its a disgrace that this can happen in any case!!!! Maybe that the clinical team could even say that their decisions were driven with the law in mind indicates that change is required. But in a resuss situation one of the last things that is on peoples minds is to consult legislation (from the 1800's? when superceded?) in case giving the best possible treatment, under guiding protocols, might result in prosecution!

Ash.J.Williams

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.

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:

An abortion as requested would have saved you that long response

DickSwiveller

Nesta99 wrote: »

There was absolutely no reason not to expidite the spontaneous abortion and was part of the mismanagment of the Savita case. It was a clinical decision that was in error. Those same clinical errors would likely have happened reardless of the law and not because of the law. There is no excuse for not understanding the law by healthcare professionals no matter how limitited the law is(suicide included from 1992). No doctor has ever been charged or struck for putting mother before pregnancy as a part of a clinical decision that saves the mother's life at any stage of complications resulting from dual-life situations; Decisions that probably happen daily nationwide but not heard of because the patient/mother was treated properly and with succesful outcome for the mother (but not always the pregnancy/dual-life) .

That Erythromycin would likely have been the prophylatic go to antibiotic administered if the termination had been expidited wouldnt have treated the infection (that triggered the spontaneous abortion initially) as per the microbiology results. The infection was a resistant ESBL that would have needed targeting by one of the 'Cef' antibiotics. Sadly similar cases have happened in countries where the laws were less ambiguous and as a result the clinical mismanagement was the focus rather than legal ambiguity legit or ortherwise in this case. This isn't advocating either a yes or no vote!!! Its is simply that Savita Halappanavar should have recieved appropriate antibiotics in a timely manner regardless of the pregnancy. If by some lucky chance she had recieved the necessary antibiotic treatment prior to contracting chorioamnionitis she may not have gone in to a spontaneous abortion. When she was miscarrying and requested that the termination be expidited there should not have been an issue as protocols allowed for this to happen. The delay in her treatment was not due to the pregnancy but due to inadaquate care. The journalist Kitty Holland, who broke the story in 2012 had this to say 'Too many clinicians did not recognise, note or communicate to the correct colleague how gravely her condition was deteriorating. By the time her consultant obstetrician diagnosed a serious infection of the amniotic fluid and the membranes around the fetus she had a temperature of 39 degrees, a pulse of 150bpm and blood pressure of 30/60. She was finally taken to theatre for an abortion, more than two days after she first asked for one – where she spontaneously delivered a girl, who died. Four days later, at 1.09am on Sunday 28th, her body having been engulfed by sepsis, she died, too'. Kitty Holland is a strong advocate for a Yes vote, acknowledges the clinical mismanagement and also feels that the delay in treatment was due to the pregnancy. Nobody bar the people managing this medical case really know for certain if this is the case as another major flaw in Savita's care was inadaquate notes on her file. If they had delayed agressive treatment of an identified infection from the beginning due to the medical and legal complications of the pregnancy this should have been noted and it wasnt. Again I'm not saying any of this as part of an agenda for or against repeal simply that it isnt as straight forward as earlier expiditing termination = a life saved. The clinical staff failed to recognise how ill she was with an infection regardless, at any point of her care until it was too late. This isnt uncommon unbelievably and in patients who were not pregnant or men either. Its a disgrace that this can happen in any case!!!! Maybe that the clinical team could even say that their decisions were driven with the law in mind indicates that change is required. But in a resuss situation one of the last things that is on peoples minds is to consult legislation (from the 1800's? when superceded?) in case giving the best possible treatment, under guiding protocols, might result in prosecution!

Great post, but I feel you're wasting your time. As I've said before, it's been explained a thousand times but they still keep using a dead woman as ammunition for their agenda

One eyed Jack

Slow Show wrote: »

It is correct that negligence was at the root of this case

...

It is quite logical to conclude that had the termination been carried out at the time of request, this scenario would have been very, very unlikely. I can also think of other rather humane reasons why a termination should be granted in situations such as this.

Nothing you've actually said contradicts what I've said, so I don't know how you could have come to the conclusion that I have a poor understanding of the subject.

I don't agree that Ms. Halappanavar's death can be directly attributed to the existence of the 8th amendment as any sort of logical conclusion, unless you really, really want it to, and ignore the actual influences which led to her death, which was negligence on the part of the medical staff assigned to her care.

Now, having said that, I actually do agree with you that I too can think of an infinite number of reasons why her request for a termination should have been granted at the time, but I think it's a terrible idea to focus on specific cases like this, and use cases like this to argue for a change in the law as it applies to all citizens of a country, and therefore all citizens will be affected by it.

Because of the existence of the law, it is undoubtedly going to influence not just pregnant women's healthcare and the kind of healthcare they are provided with, but it influences so much more, and focusing solely on the circumstances in one particular case, where there are so many other influencing factors and inferences that can be made about the case, means that we're likely to see laws passed which will only cover the specific set of circumstances pertaining to that particular case, instead of what I imagine most of the Irish medical profession would prefer which is not to have their hands tied by the law, but to be permitted to act in what they believe is in the best interests of their patients.

That of course only works if ultimately the decisions regarding their medical care are not put in the hands of the medical profession, but ultimately in the hands of patients and their families, and I don't imagine the medical profession being too on board with that idea either.

One of the reasons I bow out of discussing anything related to the topic, not just online but also offline, is because quite frankly I'm sick of the simplistic and snappy soundbites and the identity politics. My opinion hasn't, and won't be influenced by the propaganda being promoted by either camp, I have my own ideas regarding the issues surrounding the topic, regardless of the outcome of any referendum on the issue of the repeal of the 8th amendment.

vicwatson

vicwatson wrote: »

What’s unreasonable about that???

???

Defunkd

seamus wrote: »

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

Respect? The Indo carried a story not long after the Savita 'story' broke about the major pro-abortion lobby groups in Ireland being given advanced knowledge and mulling for 7 days as to how best deal with it.
Her death is only a tool for their agenda.

Google it for yourself, if you are actually interested in the fact of the matter.

Jolly Red Giant

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.

Let's be clear about some the crap being spouted in this thread -

1. Savita's husband did not express any opposition to Savita's case being used in the referendum campaign.

2. Together For Yes today published a video from Savita's mother and father advocating for a YES vote in the referendum.

3. ROSA has been campaigning on the issue of abortion rights since it was established several years ago - and has been one of the key components in mobilising people in support of Repeal, particularly in mobilising young women.

As for the cause of the death of Savita Halappanavar - if she had been given an abortion when she asked for one she would never have developed sepsis and would not have died. The reason she was denied the abortion was the existence of the 8th amendment.

Nesta99

Jolly Red Giant wrote: »

Let's be clear about some the crap being spouted in this thread -

1. Savita's husband did not express any opposition to Savita's case being used in the referendum campaign.

2. Together For Yes today published a video from Savita's mother and father advocating for a YES vote in the referendum.

3. ROSA has been campaigning on the issue of abortion rights since it was established several years ago - and has been one of the key components in mobilising people in support of Repeal, particularly in mobilising young women.

As for the cause of the death of Savita Halappanavar - if she had been given an abortion when she asked for one she would never have developed sepsis and would not have died. The reason she was denied the abortion was the existence of the 8th amendment.

Nobody can claim this!!!! She may have survived or she may not have. The microbiology results in the case would suggest that that the infection would have gone systemic and toxic sepsis have occured regradless. She would most likely survived if she had been treated appropriately with correct antibiotics. I would like to know what antibiotic ceases to work on a pregnant woman with an infection assuming microbiology has established the type of infection involved - I would like to know so that I can avoid using such an antibiotic in the clinical management of any pregnant woman with an infection. If she had cut her hand that became infected and she had left such a cut to the extent that she was at risk of sepsis she would have been given antibiotics, they may or may not have worked depending on the strain of bacterium - pregnancy would have been irrelevant to the treatment of the infection. Are you under the impression that the removal of all products related to the pregnancy would have removed the infection? If this was the case why was she showing any signs of illness beyond the spontaneous abortion? The infection was already systemic and needed treatment, the lack of treatment lead to this becoming toxic sepsis. There is nothing to indicate from inquest findings that a MToP would have 'treated' the infection.

Is this real??

Wibbs

The polling stations have opened so we're locking this thread until the results are in. Thanks to all for their contributions.