Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

CruelCoin

Overheal wrote: »

Midwife manager Ann Maria Burke tries to calm an upset Savita and explains that the termination cannot be carried out because Ireland is "a Catholic country"."[/I]

Same day, the Attending Consultant who told her this was a Catholic country,

By Astburys own admissions she would've terminated sooner if she felt it was *severe* sepsis, not just plain old sepsis(?!?) having previously denied the ability to perform a termination because "this is a catholic country,"

"We 'gon let u die 'cuz Jebus"

That's horrific reading.

Overheal

CruelCoin wrote: »

"We 'gon let u die 'cuz Jebus"

That's horrific reading.

It's like a bad episode of Star Trek Voyager and Savita was the poor soul on the away mission that got hospitalized planetside.

spookwoman

Deleted User wrote: »

From what I've read, the doctors failed to realise that she was in danger of dying from sepsis. Once they realised this, they performed an abortion but it was too little too late. The symptoms of sepsis are identical to that of pregnancy so its difficult to diagnose. It cannot be said with certainty that an earlier abortion would have saved her life. Women who have abortions die from it, women who give birth die from it, anyone who undergoes surgery can die from it. Sepsis is a common enough killer. I'm 100% pro repeal and pro choice but I do think her death has been used as a political tool.

This is the conclusion I came to not too long ago when I did a bit of research. If I have this wrong, I'll gladly change my position.

eh?? From page 25 on http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2013/06/savita-halappanavar-hse-report.pdf

Sunday 21st of October 2012: Pain and bulging membrane
Note Pain, particularly severe pain may be a symptom of intrauterine sepsis or the process of miscarriage and should alert a clinician to look for uterine tenderness and if necessary, additional investigations.
O&G SpR 1 recalled at interview: O&G SpR 1 recalled at interview that the patient was actively having pain and that “it was probably a matter of hours before miscarriage”. The management option considered by O&G SpR 1 and discussed with the patient was “conservative management, wait and see
what would happen naturally” and that “no other forms of management were discussed”.
O&G SpR (Specialist Registrar) 1 documented that these findings were discussed with the patient and her partner.
O&G SpR 1 recalled at interview discussing with the patient and her husband that the pregnancy was not viable.
O&G SpR 1 did not recall a discussion including options to speed
up the process of inevitable miscarriage. O&G SpR 1 recalled leaving review room as “the couple wanted time alone

Monday 22nd of October 2012: 00.30HRS (Approx) Membranes rupture

Wednesday the 24th of October 2012: 04.15HRS
19 Rigors (i.e. shaking or shivering) is a sign of sepsis.
20 Rigors indicated by teeth chattering suggests sepsis.
21 Spontaneous Rupture of Membranes (SROM)

2 days her cervix was dilated and prime for sepsis. Saying doctors didnt realise she was in danger of dying from sepsis is like saying if I leave a rusty nail in my foot I'm not in danger of getting gangrene. They knew she was miscarrying and nothing was done to remove the chances of sepsis. She may have even had sepsis beginning when she was taken in on the 21st.

standardg60

Kumejima wrote: »

Yeah I let my sarcasm get the better of me there.

Look, it is what it is now and we'll all have to live with the result.
I don't think there's any point in people on the NO side branding the YES side as baby muderers or the YES side painting all of us as religious mysoginistic bigots.

It basically comes down to whether you believe an unborn child is a human being or not. If you think its a clump of cells, with no human qualities or "life" then taking the YES position is entirely reasonable. There's no "baby", hence no father whose rights you have to consider, so its only what the woman wants to do as a medical option that counts.


Just to explain it from a No voters perspective. Most of us believe the unborn child is a human being. A living child. No lesser worth than a 1 year old toddler. Now, going from that supposition, that we're talking about a living child as opposed to a foetus, isn't it entirely reasonable that there are now three people in the equation. Isn't it entirely reasonable that one of those people shouldn't get to end the life of a child, especially as there is another parent involved. If it were a 1 year old child whose life was in the balance, isn't it entirely reasonable that a decent society would put the child's life at a higher priority that the womans right to choose? Why would you castigate someone for not wanting to see that child killed?

This where people are talking past each other. One side thinks the others are happy to see toddlers murdered and the other thinks we want to use a clump of cells to control women's bodies for religious or misogynistic reasons. Both sides are outraged and bitterness can spill over understandably.

We have to realise that the vast majority voted with good intentions. Maybe a few didn't but what can you do. Irish people are a caring and decent people. We might not agree with each other's stances, but lets try to see the good rather than the bad motives on the opposing side.

Firstly, fair play to you.

As a yes voter I have no problem in describing abortion as the intentional killing of an unborn child, it is what it is. It is simply the unique ability of humans to feel compassion and empathy for our fellow humans which prevents us from having hard and fast rules. The 8th amendment was a hard and fast rule..to follow it to the letter meant women had to be kept prisoners and alive until the child was born. Clearly this was an infringement on basic human rights so subsequent amendments reduced the 8th to tumbleweed except for cases such as Savita.

The 8th was, is and always will be the biggest pile of nonsense ever constructed through the English language. It sought to divide one thing into two that everyone knew could not be done. It is so nonsensical that the phrase 'equal priority' would have actually brought more clarity. It is a vile, loaded, misogynistic, discriminatory statement that has no place in decent society. The phrase 'due regard', or basically the doffing of ones cap, is frankly (to borrow a phrase) , disgusting. It succeeded in one thing only, guaranteeing that a pregnant woman had as equal a right to die as her unborn child.

As an example of it's nonsense, when the right to travel came in, under the 8th the state should have argued that while the woman had the right to travel for a termination, it was obliged to protect the unborn, so therefore it should introduce a law to have it removed from the woman before she left.

You voted to retain this.

This is still a democracy, so you and others are fully entitled to elect enough td's who share your views who will re-enact a ban on abortion.

To elaborate on compassion and empathy, ask yourself this.

Is a woman who kills her unborn child in a fit of heartbroken pique upon learning that the father and man she loves is leaving her for someone else as guilty of murder as a stranger who walks up and stabs her?

Pac1Man

A lot of teary men in the celebration parades. 🤔

Scratching my head here. I've been clearly mislead. Cheers for the clarifications.

nice_guy80

The Iona crowd getting more air time on RTE

Why? Why?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

swampgas

nice_guy80 wrote: »

The Iona crowd getting more air time on RTE

Why? Why?

Wild guess: they're very very litigious and RTE prefer to pander to them than risk a court case.

fxotoole

Pac1Man wrote: »

A lot of teary men in the celebration parades. 🀔

Soyboys, obvs

fxotoole

swampgas wrote: »

Wild guess: they're very very litigious and RTE prefer to pander to them than risk a court case.

Or RTE are giving them just enough rope to hang themselves

iguana

Deleted User wrote: »

From what I've read, this isn't entirely true though

And what have you read that Professor Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, the head of the enquiry into her death, hasn't. He has come out on the record to make it clear that the 8th amendment caused her death. People really need to stop misrepresenting his findings. It's truly despicable.

ArmaniJeanss

nice_guy80 wrote: »

The Iona crowd getting more air time on RTE

Why? Why?

They make it easy for TV - they will always have someone available ready to go on, at any kind of notice, fully prepped.

They make it easier for the print media as well, a journalist filing a copy for a deadline has a choice to either a) ring around for a few quotes and spend time on hold/chasing people or b) look at his faxmachine/inbox where someone from Iona will already have sent in some soundbites on whatever todays big moral story is.

AtomicHorror

Overheal wrote: »

They knew she was at risk for sepsis, she was on antibiotics. "Inevitable Miscarriage" was recorded on her records. The next day,

"Aware that her baby will not survive, Mrs Halappanavar asks her consultant Dr Astbury for a termination.

The consultant tells her that "in this country it is not legal to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of poor prognosis for a foetus". A foetal heartbeat is present and her life is not at risk so it is not legally possible to carry out the termination.

Midwife manager Ann Maria Burke tries to calm an upset Savita and explains that the termination cannot be carried out because Ireland is "a Catholic country"."

The next morning,

"Dr Uzockwu notes a foul-smelling discharge and diagnoses an infection of the foetal membranes. He puts Savita on stronger antibiotics and orders tests."

Same day, the Attending Consultant who told her this was a Catholic country,

"8.25am Another two hours pass and consultant Dr Astbury visits Savita.

She does not read the notes herself and is not told about the discharge by the register looking after Savita, Dr Anne Helps.

She is told about the infection diagnosis and expresses concern.

She says she may have to carry out a termination despite the heartbeat. More tests are ordered and more antibiotics prescribed. Sepsis is diagnosed, rather than severe sepsis, because her blood pressure is not low.

She told the inquest she would have carried out a termination sooner had she been told about the discharge."

By Astburys own admissions she would've terminated sooner if she felt it was *severe* sepsis, not just plain old sepsis(?!?) having previously denied the ability to perform a termination because "this is a catholic country," believing " "in this country it is not legal to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of poor prognosis for a foetus." That poor prognosis being an "inevitable miscarriage."

The 8th amendment quite demonstrably played a heavy influence on the poor judgement of the attending consultant, which resulted in Savita's death. I fail to see how anything less is in dispute.

****ing hell, it's such a sad and senseless story. It gets me every time.

ArmaniJeanss

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

They make it easy for TV - they will always have someone available ready to go on, at any kind of notice, fully prepped.

They make it easier for the print media as well, a journalist filing a copy for a deadline has a choice to either a) ring around for a few quotes and spend time on hold/chasing people or b) look at his faxmachine/inbox where someone from Iona will already have sent in some soundbites on whatever todays big moral story is.

Not even a or b needed for print realy given David Quinn writes opinion pieces for the Indo and Bread O'Brien does the same for the IT

The Legend Of Kira

Listened back to the Wlr deise am podcast from this morning, the fianna fail td mary butler who was on the no side was asked " why the no side lost ? " she put it quite well in her answer " that the no side didn,t offer any alternative only the status quo " .

https://soundcloud.com/wlrfmwaterford/deise-today-monday-28th-may-2018?in=wlrfmwaterford/sets/deise-today-with-eamon-keane

spookwoman

This was Mary Butlers Election leaflet from 2016. No mention of her pro life stance. I wonder would she have gotten in if she had been truthful

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

She was having a miscarriage. There was no hope for the baby.
She was left in hospital for a week, at the start of which she requested an abortion to speed up the inevitable.
She was refused and made sit there waiting for her baby to die, a few extra requests for an abortion were also denied.
She was left to suffer, developed sepsis, and died.

If she had been granted an abortion when she first requested one she wouldn’t have developed sepsis and woulda have died.
It’s that simple.

For those who blame the death of Savita Halappanaver on the Eight Amendment, how do you explain this medical neglegence settlement?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/medical-negligence-case-taken-by-savita-halappanavars-widower-settled-out-of-court-34526609.html

A medical negligence case being taken by the widower of Savita Halappanavar has been settled out of court.

The case, which was being taken by Praveen Halappanavar against the HSE and obstetrician Katherine Astbury was due to begin tomorrow in the High Court.

However, a source has told the Irish Independent the case was settled late last week.

And this article in The Irish Examiner?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/savitas-death-is-not-about-abortion-it-is-about-medical-negligence-247993.html

The fact is, a finding of medical negligence is an extremely difficult outcome, and I wonder how many people are even aware of its relevance in the case of Savita Halappanavar? Her medical team were perfectly entitled to terminate her pregnancy; as it transpires, they were actually at fault for NOT having done so.

The Legend Of Kira

spookwoman wrote: »

This was Mary Butlers Election leaflet from 2016. No mention of her pro life stance. I wonder would she have gotten in if she had been truthful

While Mary didn,t specify her views on abortion in her election leaflets, prior to the last general election all candidates were asked to complete/take part an online survey on whichcandidate.ie to give their views on the various issues some candidiates took part in that online survey while others didn,t . Mary took part in that online survey & gave her reply to the issue of abortion " as only when the mothers life is at risk from illness or suicide " .

Link is provided to Mary,s profile from whichcandidate.ie .

http://whichcandidate.ie/events/5/constituencies/48/candidates/296

pleas advice

Huh, same answer as Leo Varadkar.

gctest50

pleas advice wrote: »

Huh, same answer as Leo Varadkar.

Nothing wrong with changing your view esp as you look into something a bit more

As for that lying-by-omission-and-covering-it-in-some-website-somewhere ?

The harpoons - man them

spookwoman

The Legend Of Kira wrote: »

While Mary didn,t specify her views on abortion in her election leaflets, prior to the last general election all candidates were asked to complete/take part an online survey on whichcandidate.ie to give their views on the various issues some candidiates took part in that online survey while others didn,t . Mary took part in that online survey & gave her reply to the issue of abortion " as only when the mothers life is at risk from illness or suicide " .

Link is provided to Mary,s profile from whichcandidate.ie .

http://whichcandidate.ie/events/5/constituencies/48/candidates/296

How many people actually went online and checked that page. Its the first time I've heard of that page. Thei main page is tacky as hell and doesnt look like a proper government site.
Edit Bit more looking into it.
It only ran nation wide in 2016 WhichCandidate is based in the Department of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Limerick. Our primary media partner is The Irish Times. We work closely with the political staff of The Irish Times in identifying the relevant issues in each election. The Irish Times also provides coverage for WhichCandidate during election campaigns, and publishes our analyses of the policy positions of voters and candidates.
For the General Election 2016, we will also be partnering with local media outlets throughout the country.

The Legend Of Kira

spookwoman wrote: »

How many people actually went online and checked that page. Its the first time I've heard of that page. Thei main page is tacky as hell and doesnt look like a proper government site.
Edit Bit more looking into it.
It only ran nation wide in 2016 WhichCandidate is based in the Department of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Limerick. Our primary media partner is The Irish Times. We work closely with the political staff of The Irish Times in identifying the relevant issues in each election. The Irish Times also provides coverage for WhichCandidate during election campaigns, and publishes our analyses of the policy positions of voters and candidates.
For the General Election 2016, we will also be partnering with local media outlets throughout the country.

The whichcandidate.ie website was mentioned on breakingnews.ie + mentioned in the Limerick leader prior to the last general election.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/discover/still-not-sure-who-to-vote-for-let-us-help-721978.html

https://www.limerickleader.ie/news/home/202525/Whichcandidate-ie-is-a--one.html

An article from the Broadsheet .ie website took note of the whichcandidate.ie online survey " According to the whichcandidate.ie election site, of the 44 elected Fianna Fáil TDs, only two – Lisa Chambers and Jim O’Callaghan – favour expanding access to abortion " .

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/03/09/a-grand-pro-life-coalition/

Overheal

swampgas wrote: »

Wild guess: they're very very litigious and RTE prefer to pander to them than risk a court case.

Or give oxygen to extremists who would claim conspiracies about the government trying to silence them.

retro:electro

With all due respect, I find it pretty rich that the ones most vocal about retaining the 8th across the myriad of threads about it have been the ones who are at least risk of dying from it; 3 men and a nun. It’s all well and good saying Savita didn’t die due to the 8th until you’re the one hauled up in a hospital bed miscarrying and riddled with sepsis, clinging to life begging for medical intervention that doctors are hesitant to give you because although you’re dying you’re not dead enough for them to intervene. It’s well and good defending the 8th until the last words you hear before you die are “you’re in a Catholic country”.
Yes the staff should have and were legally entitled to intervene before she died - the whole point is the 8th was such a clusterfcuk of legal red tape and medical limbo they didn’t know when to, and if the bloody thing never existed she wouldn’t have had to die slowly over the course of a week begging for her life.

strandroad

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

The fact is, a finding of medical negligence is an extremely difficult outcome, and I wonder how many people are even aware of its relevance in the case of Savita Halappanavar? Her medical team were perfectly entitled to terminate her pregnancy; as it transpires, they were actually at fault for NOT having done so.

Because they mismanaged the risk to her life, but it's their refusal of her abortion request (on health grounds) that created this risk in the first place. And they refused because of the 8th.

ELM327

Have been away for a few days.
Just back to post that I'm delighted with not only the yes win, but the absolute decimation of the no side at the polls, by a 2:1 majority. No one predicted that, I had said 57-43 as an optimist.

Lots of tears shed on Saturday watching the counts, for all those women and couples affected by the 8th over the past 30+ years. I've known some personally, but really so did everyone. If you don't know someone personally who has "gotten the boat" over the last 3.5 decades, it's because they didn't trust you enough to tell you their "dirty little shameful secret". The vacuous young woman in the blue top on the RTE coverage was particularly tapped.

I'm so proud of my country for doing the right thing by our women. I was delighted to see the lies and scaremongering caught out in the ballot box, the most powerful weapon of all. Mná na hEireann, Abú!

The north is next!! (Dare we say, tiocfaidh ár lá?)

Igotadose

Anyone know of a link to the 'open letter' signed by 120 GPs against repeal, just prior to the referendum? These things are hard to find! I want to be sure our GP didn't sign it, if he/she did, time to move on to another.

kunst nugget

spookwoman wrote: »

This was Mary Butlers Election leaflet from 2016. No mention of her pro life stance. I wonder would she have gotten in if she had been truthful

Why are you targeting her in particular? There were plenty of politicians that adopted a pro-life stance. The pro-choice side won and I'm delighted with that but deciding to name and shame politicians that didn't agree with that stance is tacky imo.

ELM327

kunst nugget wrote: »

Why are you targeting her in particular? There were plenty of politicians that adopted a pro-life stance. The pro-choice side won and I'm delighted with that but deciding to name and shame politicians that didn't agree with that stance is tacky imo.

All politicians should be named with their stance published, and shamed for those who voted no.


I have been an FF voter since way back when I was able to vote. I lent it to FG in 2011 but took it back after.


Never, ever voting FF again.