Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Loafing Oaf

Berserker wrote: »

Talking to the people, the experts in the area, who are actually going to implement this would antagonise undecided voters. I've heard it all now.

I'm not talking about talking to doctors, of course they should have done that. I'm saying taking practical preparatory steps for introducing the service like training GPs, pre-ordering pills would have looked like taking the referendum result for granted.

spookwoman

Geuze wrote: »

They will get 450 for this service.

It seems they get less for maternity.

Sorry just saw the article for the 450

150 for first visit which includes scan.
"At the first visit the medical practitioner will confirm the pregnancy, offer advice and information and certify that the pregnancy has not exceeded twelve weeks gestation. "

I take it that it will probably involve a councellor as well as a practitioner

300 then for Following the three-day waiting period, a second visit will be required at which the medical practitioner will obtain consent, provide information on the procedure, possible complications and advice on contraception, administer the first medication and supply the second medication to the patient to be taken at home. a 3rd visit is optional for "the medical practitioner will confirm that the termination is complete and provide an aftercare consultation."

I don't have kids but how many times does someone go to a doctor during a pregnancy for routine checks I would think it adds up to more that say 9 visits at say 50 a go.

Berserker

Berserker wrote: »

650 signed the petition, fyi.

650 currently-working GP's?

id be checking that list twice.

.......

spookwoman wrote: »

I don't have kids but how many times does someone go to a doctor during a pregnancy for routine checks I would think it adds up to more that say 9 visits at say 50 a go.

Are your GP visits not free during pregnancy?

astrofool

....... wrote: »

Are your GP visits not free during pregnancy?

The doctor still gets paid....

Hotblack Desiato

They pulled a similar stunt a few years back at the obstetricians' and gynaecologists' conference, pack the hall with retirees then pass a BS motion stating that abortion is never needed to save a woman's life blah blah.

gandalf

Deleted User wrote: »

650 currently-working GP's?

id be checking that list twice.

As long as the list is published so no woman who wants a choice accidentally attends one of these "doctors".

It would be a useful tool for those of us who voted repeal to avoid giving them business in future as well.

spookwoman

WTF!

A number of anti-abortion TDs have proposed new changes to the abortion legislation which would require a doctor to report whether a woman had any previous abortions, what age and ethnicity she is and whether she is married.

If a medical practitioner does not do this, they could be fined or jailed for up to five years

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/abortion-law-change-to-make-doctors-report-woman-s-marital-status-sought-1.3719749?mode=amp&fbclid=IwAR1kJMCgZJAAc5hHQEilZ1fWf0eQE5zD3kFooGAdSwetLcLOYHa6X3MOUi4#.XAaVIw_Jqtc.facebook

gandalf

Ah it's the usual suspects wasting time as normal. Just when you think our TDs can't get any worse they lower the bar further.

pleas advice

seamus wrote: »

Other dating methods are good enough

Other than ultrasound, what would give an accurate gestational age?

SusieBlue

pleas advice wrote: »

Other than ultrasound, what would give an accurate gestational age?

Date from LMP, as was relied upon for centuries, before ultrasound machines were invented?

eviltwin

pleas advice wrote: »

Other than ultrasound, what would give an accurate gestational age?

The woman herself? Most women would be able to tell the doctor the date she had sex and/or the date of her LMP.

pleas advice

Legally, that won't do.

astrofool

pleas advice wrote: »

Legally, that won't do.

I supposeth thee'll wanteth thy pound of flesh then, luckily the world hath changed.

pleas advice

wat?

iguana

pleas advice wrote: »

Other than ultrasound, what would give an accurate gestational age?

In early pregnancy, HCG levels are an accurate indicator of gestational age. Scans don't provide pinpoint accuracy either past the first few weeks. Mine was a week off by 8 weeks past gestation. This attempt at an amendment is nothing more than an attempt to make 'bad' women submit to a transvaginal scan as some sort of warped attempt to punish them. It's disgusting but completely transparent.

foreverandever

iguana wrote: »

In early pregnancy, HCG levels are an accurate indicator of gestational age. Scans don't provide pinpoint accuracy either past the first few weeks. Mine was a week off by 8 weeks past gestation. This attempt at an amendment is nothing more than an attempt to make 'bad' women submit to a transvaginal scan as some sort of warped attempt to punish them. It's disgusting but completely transparent.

Incorrect, there is a huge range of HCG levels so you couldn’t use them to see if someone is 6 weeks vs 9 weeks

pleas advice

found this chart, ultrasound mightn't be 100%, but its surely better than this

https://www.huggies.com.au/pregnancy/early-stages/symptoms/hcg-levels

This attempt at an amendment is nothing more than an attempt to make 'bad' women submit to a transvaginal scan as some sort of warped attempt to punish them. It's disgusting but completely transparent.

i don't know anything about that, just commenting on the practicalities of determining how far along a pregnancy is

iguana

foreverandever wrote: »

Incorrect, there is a huge range of HCG levels so you couldn’t use them to see if someone is 6 weeks vs 9 weeks

In the majority of cases HCG levels will be an accurate enough indicator. If someone says they are 4 weeks past gestation and they are actually 13, urine will tell you they are wrong. If they are 6weeks pregnant you will know they aren't actually in the second trimester, etc. It will suffice in most cases to let a doctor know if a pregnancy is early enough for medical termination.

It won't be accurate enough for a doctor to know if a woman who believes she is 9/10 weeks pregnant is correct or not. But by that stage scans aren't actually accurate enough to rely on either. There is less of a margin of error but it still exists. A scan can't be relied on to accurately say a woman is either 10 or 11 weeks pregnant, other measures have to be assessed too. I know precisely when my son was conceived. By 8 weeks past gestation all my scans were wrong and showing me to be entering the 2nd trimester. Earlier scans had been absolutely precise but once he was passed that point his rate of growth was faster than average and the scans could not be used for dating accuracy.

up for anything

gandalf wrote: »

Ah it's the usual suspects wasting time as normal. Just when you think our TDs can't get any worse they lower the bar further.

Talking of low. I never realised Mattie McGrath is married to a Sherlock - I assume of Iona Institute stock. No wonder he's the way he is.

uptherebels

gandalf wrote: »

Ah it's the usual suspects wasting time as normal. Just when you think our TDs can't get any worse they lower the bar further.

At least they got rumbled on their claims of not filibusting when they continued to talk on an amendment that was flawed and couldn't be passed after that fact was pointed out to them.

Spend more time talking about how they are being silenced than actually trying to contribute something.
Not that I'm surprised

Hotblack Desiato

All of the crazy things they're proposing are straight out of the Deep South USA anti-choicers playbook.

Imagine forcing a victim of rape to go through a transvaginal ultrasound to get an abortion? When they tried this in the US it was justifiably described as a second rape.

foreverandever

iguana wrote: »

In the majority of cases HCG levels will be an accurate enough indicator. If someone says they are 4 weeks past gestation and they are actually 13, urine will tell you they are wrong. If they are 6weeks pregnant you will know they aren't actually in the second trimester, etc. It will suffice in most cases to let a doctor know if a pregnancy is early enough for medical termination.

It won't be accurate enough for a doctor to know if a woman who believes she is 9/10 weeks pregnant is correct or not. But by that stage scans aren't actually accurate enough to rely on either. There is less of a margin of error but it still exists. A scan can't be relied on to accurately say a woman is either 10 or 11 weeks pregnant, other measures have to be assessed too. I know precisely when my son was conceived. By 8 weeks past gestation all my scans were wrong and showing me to be entering the 2nd trimester. Earlier scans had been absolutely precise but once he was passed that point his rate of growth was faster than average and the scans could not be used for dating accuracy.

No you’re still wrong, see the post above. And urine is 100% incorrect.

iguana

foreverandever wrote: »

No you’re still wrong, see the post above. And urine is 100% incorrect.

I'm not wrong. I know exactly how it works. In the first few weeks of pregnancy in the vast, vast majority of cases HCG will allow a doctor to know that the pregnancy is early enough for medical termination. Urine is a fine indicator in the early weeks, blood may be taken for increased accuracy later on. When HCG level are too high for certainty, whether because the pregnancy is further advanced than presumed, multiple embryos or just very high levels, then scans can be utilised at the doctors' discretion. But that's when it's in the doctors' opinion that a scan is needed, not because of some punitive addition to the law extremely invasive* procedure to be mandatory when in many cases it will be completely unnecessary.

*In early pregnancy only a transvaginal scan will get an image of the sac/embryo. This is an intimate, invasive procedure that no-one should ever have to go through without their full consent. Most especially not a woman who may be very vulnerable at the time.

WillContribute

iguana wrote: »

I'm not wrong. I know exactly how it works. In the first few weeks of pregnancy in the vast, vast majority of cases HCG will allow a doctor to know that the pregnancy is early enough for medical termination. Urine is a fine indicator in the early weeks, blood may be taken for increased accuracy later on. When HCG level are too high for certainty, whether because the pregnancy is further advanced than presumed, multiple embryos or just very high levels, then scans can be utilised at the doctors' discretion. But that's when it's in the doctors' opinion that a scan is needed, not because of some punitive addition to the law extremely invasive* procedure to be mandatory when in many cases it will be completely unnecessary.

*In early pregnancy only a transvaginal scan will get an image of the sac/embryo. This is an intimate, invasive procedure that no-one should ever have to go through without their full consent. Most especially not a woman who may be very vulnerable at the time.

Before I start here are some of the medical references.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17803619/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17803618/?i=2&from=/17803619/related

For the 8 to 18 week age period, regular abdominal ultrasound is the gold standard to age gestation. Out by a few days in a population.

Run the wand across the belly. No requirement for transvaginal scan. This claim is scare mongering.

If nothing is showing, it's less than 6 weeks.
Something showing, 6-8 weeks.
Clear embryo which can be measured 8-10 weeks.
Clear fetal formation, 10-12 weeks. Just look up what to expect for the 8 week scan.

That's why there is a 9 week referal to the hospital, the hospital will have more accurate reliable equipment.

As for the others:

Urine, reasonably accurate up to 3 weeks, then it just confirms you are definitely pregnant. Please provide a reference to support accuracy claims.

HCG. Idication up to about 5 weeks, after that just well pregnant. Please supply a reference to support claims after 5 weeks.

LMP can be accurate but is very subjective and doesn't work for women with irregular cycles.

All reminds me of the time I was stopped at a morning random checkpoint last year.

Garda: Did you have any drink last night?
Me: Yes, three or four
Garda: You should be fine and seem fine but, I just need to be accurate for legal reasons. Can you just below into this bag.
Me: OK.
Garda: You are clear to go. A small bit showing but well below the limit.
Me: Fine.

Loafing Oaf

gandalf wrote: »

Ah it's the usual suspects wasting time as normal. Just when you think our TDs can't get any worse they lower the bar further.

Is this really their most egregious proposal, compared to say the one on "dignified disposal of foetal remains"? I don't believe this stuff should be specified in legislation but in practice I'd imagine women seeking abortions will be asked most of these questions anyway.

Igotadose

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Is this really their most egregious proposal, compared to say the one on "dignified disposal of foetal remains"? I don't believe this stuff should be specified in legislation but in practice I'd imagine women seeking abortions will be asked most of these questions anyway.

Interesting historical article on Slate.com about one of the early heroes of the legal abortion movement in the US, Patricia Maginnis. Good quote useful when understanding what these anti-woman TD's are up to along with the 'conscientious' doctors that are attempting to delay things:
--
(talking about what the state of things was when Maginnis took on the SF legal establishment)

"In either case, the debate revolved around doctors’ preferences and anxieties." (and not the woman's, my paraphrasing)
---
https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/12/pat-maginnis-abortion-rights-pro-choice-activist.html

uptherebels

adjorned for 5 min by the ceann comhairle because mattie won't shut up. They have not even started and his persecution complex is at full throttle.:rolleyes:

Igotadose

uptherebels wrote: »

adjorned for 5 min by the ceann comhairle because mattie won't shut up. They have not even started and his persecution complex is at full throttle.:rolleyes:

Can he be censured?

ELM327

Igotadose wrote: »

Can he be censured?

or aborted?


Seriously though... these men need to move on and realise that Ireland and its people have voted in their numbers against him and his ilk.

Edit: I say this as a man myself.