Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

nozzferrahhtoo

Yea I was wondering too what the reason for the deferral actually is. It is not clear from the news paper link above.

It does appear from a first read that she is being denied the rights we all just voted to give her. But even the best law has to have exceptions and I think I will withhold judgement until it is reported what grounds they refused the abortion on. There MIGHT actually be a very good reason for it that I do not know of yet.

Anyone with more info? Would be much appreciated!

Amirani

14 year prison sentences for medical practitioners who perform abortions outside of the strict legal limits is going to have consequences. If I was a doctor and there was any ambiguity past the 12 weeks then I'd be hesitant.

In this case it seems to be the case that the FFA has been confirmed, but we're not privy to exact details at this point.

gmisk

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yea I was wondering too what the reason for the deferral actually is. It is not clear from the news paper link above.

It does appear from a first read that she is being denied the rights we all just voted to give her. But even the best law has to have exceptions and I think I will withhold judgement until it is reported what grounds they refused the abortion on. There MIGHT actually be a very good reason for it that I do not know of yet.

Anyone with more info? Would be much appreciated!

Genuinely what do you think the reason could possibly be for a board of hospital to deny an abortion?
The indication from Ruth Coppinger is that they believe she will naturally miscarry in the coming weeks and that would mean they dont have to sign of on a FFA termination.

2 consultants confirmed FFA.
Forcing this woman to wait 4 weeks when it is likely she will miscarry is absolutely barbaric.

amcalester

gmisk wrote: »

Genuinely what do you think the reason could possibly be for a board of hospital to deny an abortion?
2 consultants confirmed FFA.
Forcing this woman to wait 4 weeks when it is likely she will miscarry is absolutely barbaric.

The only thing I can think of is that the procedure causes undue risk to the mother’s health but that seems unlikely given their wait and see attitude.

nozzferrahhtoo

gmisk wrote: »

Genuinely what do you think the reason could possibly be for a board of hospital to deny an abortion?

As I said I have literally no idea! That is why they are paid medical professionals and I am not All I can do is withhold my judgement until such time as I know the full story. Perhaps she has been identified as a high risk example in relation to the required procedure or drugs, and hence the procedure is deemed high risk in her case (edit: amcalester beat me to essentially that idea).

I am simply playing the ignorance card on this one until more details are in. Like the good skeptic waiting for the data

But for sure 100 agree that....

gmisk wrote: »

The indication from Ruth Coppinger is that they believe she will naturally miscarry in the coming weeks

.... if they are refusing it on the grounds it might happen by itself in time only.... so why bother doing it manually......... that is an absolutely awful reason for it.

I see no argument at all for not removing something now that might die, go septic, or worse as time goes by and it dies by itself. And as we know the later any abortion is performed, the greater the proportional risks of complications. Even with medical abortion rather than surgical. And on top of that the emotional turmoil of having an unplanned abortion if likely to increase in proportion to the length of the pregnancy too.

So I hope whatever the reason is, if any, it is a damn sight better than a lazy "wait and see". But I respect the medical community enough to at least give them a chance to lay out their justification BEFORE hanging them for it

gmisk

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said I have literally no idea! That is why they are paid medical professionals and I am not All I can do is withhold my judgement until such time as I know the full story. Perhaps she has been identified as a high risk example in relation to the required procedure or drugs, and hence the procedure is deemed high risk in her case (edit: amcalester beat me to essentially that idea).

I am simply playing the ignorance card on this one until more details are in. Like the good skeptic waiting for the data

But for sure 100 agree that....



.... if they are refusing it on the grounds it might happen by itself in time only.... so why bother doing it manually......... that is an absolutely awful reason for it.

I see no argument at all for not removing something now that might die, go septic, or worse as time goes by and it dies by itself. And as we know the later any abortion is performed, the greater the proportional risks of complications. Even with medical abortion rather than surgical. And on top of that the emotional turmoil of having an unplanned abortion if likely to increase in proportion to the length of the pregnancy too.

So I hope whatever the reason is, if any, it is a damn sight better than a lazy "wait and see". But I respect the medical community enough to at least give them a chance to lay out their justification BEFORE hanging them for it

I understand what you are saying and agree for the most part.
But in this instance 2 consultants confirmed FFA....it is a hospital board that refused an abortion....not the "medical community".
But you are right lets see what they have to say, but I am finding it hard to fathom a reason.

nozzferrahhtoo

gmisk wrote: »

But you are right lets see what they have to say, but I am finding it hard to fathom a reason.

Me too but I have been bitten by this in the past when I jumped too soon. I screeched wildly about someone being denied a procedure (nothing to do with abortion) and how awful it was.

Then I read the actual medical opinion. The procedure in question required a specific drug and surgery. The patient in question had thin blood and blood clotting issues. So the procedure for that patient was SPECIFICALLY identified as an unwarranted risk and another option was deemed best in their specific scenario. The specific drug was warned off against thin blood issues. Surgery is bad when there is blood clotting issues. It was basically the right medical call.

So I just had to deflate and go "oh yes.... quite....I didn't realize.... LOOK OVER THERE A 20 FOOT WOMAN!" *sounds of scarpering*

It was purely my medical ignorance that had me jump too fast and left me red faced. So I am more cautious with my "wait and see" attitude here. But I admit, like you, I have a low expectation that their reasoning.... if any even.... here is going to be good.

LorelaiG

The Coombe are not ready for abortions apparently, if this is the case the woman should have been referred to the Rotunda or to the NMH who are ready. She hasn't, she has been told her options are to wait it out and see if she miscarries or go to the UK. This is wrong.

ohnonotgmail

What i am trying to understand is why it went before the board at all. It should be a medical decision. The board of the coombe is not entirely comprised of medical personnel.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hope she consented to be named? We already had a big kerfuffle over the first abortion being outed and people saying that was an awful thing to do and it should have been a private matter.

ELM327

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hope she consented to be named? We already had a big kerfuffle over the first abortion being outed and people saying that was an awful thing to do and it should have been a private matter.

Well she apparently asked for it to be raised in the Dáil so I can't imagine she objected to being named.

LorelaiG

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Hope she consented to be named? We already had a big kerfuffle over the first abortion being outed and people saying that was an awful thing to do and it should have been a private matter.

Yes, she asked for the case to be raised in the Dail so has consented to being named.

GAA Beo

ELM327 wrote: »

I dislike those two bearded lefties too but a) it happened as the woman was named and b) "knackers" is not an appropriate term for any contributing member of society

Coppinger and Brid Smith, contribute nothing to society, only to it's downfall. I have had dealings with them, they aren't my style.

Amirani

LorelaiG wrote: »

The Coombe are not ready for abortions apparently, if this is the case the woman should have been referred to the Rotunda or to the NMH who are ready. She hasn't, she has been told her options are to wait it out and see if she miscarries or go to the UK. This is wrong.

This might make sense actually, and could be part of the issue here. Could she not be treated at a different hospital or what's the process around that?

nozzferrahhtoo

ELM327 wrote: »

Well she apparently asked for it to be raised in the Dáil so I can't imagine she objected to being named.

LorelaiG wrote: »

Yes, she asked for the case to be raised in the Dail so has consented to being named.

Good, thanks. That at least is a good thing!

Also glad I asked for a second reason. I just got my first ever "thanks" from EOTR

I am not sure what that means, but it has got to mean something.

gmisk

GAA Beo wrote: »

Coppinger and Brid Smith, contribute nothing to society, only to it's downfall. I have had dealings with them, they are scum.

I have met Brid Smith a few times and I have found her the complete opposite.
The fact you use the term "trot knackers" and "scum" and also seem to think "it probably didnt happen", says a lot more about you than them IMO.

LorelaiG

gmisk wrote: »

I have met Brid Smith a few times and I have found her the complete opposite.
The fact you use the term "trot knackers" and "scum" and also seem to think "it probably didnt happen", says a lot more about you than them IMO.

Exactly, I've met Ruth on many occasions, she lives nearish to me. She's always been nothing but nice with any dealings I've had with her.

ELM327

gmisk wrote: »

I have met Brid Smith a few times and I have found her the complete opposite.
The fact you use the term "trot knackers" and "scum" and also seem to think "it probably didnt happen", says a lot more about you than them IMO.

+1


I have many ideology differences with the likes of smith and coppinger, they are very left wing and I am generally right wing on financial issues so we wouldn't agree on most things. But calling anyone scum when they are both - by most accounts - nice people is quite frankly odious.

GAA Beo

LorelaiG wrote: »

Exactly, I've met Ruth on many occasions, she lives nearish to me. She's always been nothing but nice with any dealings I've had with her.

She's a vile hate filled woman. Most people I know think similar. Always wondered what type of person voted for her.....Dubs.....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Did she ever get nationalising Intel like she wanted?? She is a very dangerous idiot, and her followers likewise.

GAA Beo

gmisk wrote: »

I have met Brid Smith a few times and I have found her the complete opposite.
The fact you use the term "trot knackers" and "scum" and also seem to think "it probably didnt happen", says a lot more about you than them IMO.

The last time I seen her she was outside the Dail at a protest with a load of communist flags. Ranting away and inciting hatred.

Anyone running around with a communist flag, which led to the slaughter of hundreds of millions of people. Is no better than a Nazi, and is indeed scum and a dangerous idiot.

freshpopcorn

Mod NoteGAA Beo just be careful how you speak about people on this thread.
If you think somebody is poor at there job or you disagree with there views write it in a nicer manner.

gmisk

GAA Beo wrote: »

She's a vile hate filled woman. Most people I know think similar. Always wondered what type of person voted for her.....Dubs.....:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Did she ever get nationalising Intel like she wanted?? She is a very dangerous idiot, and her followers likewise.

Your personal hate for the 2 TDs that raised the horrendous situation this woman has been put in isn't really relevant, unless you still think it didnt happen?

freshpopcorn

Guys can I ask sort of a thick question. I think I've asked it ages ago.
If Ireland elected a party such as Renua or Peadar Toibins new party could these easily make abortion illegal in Ireland again if they had a large amount of seats in the Dail and it would tskes ages with bills/etc
I know this won't happen but the marriage referendum is set in stone they can't change it without going back to the people but this isn't. Am I correct in saying that?

ohnonotgmail

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Guys can I ask sort of a thick question. I think I've asked it ages ago.
If Ireland elected a party such as Renua or Peadar Toibins new party could these easily make abortion illegal in Ireland again if they had a large amount of seats in the Dail and it would tskes ages with bills/etc
I know this won't happen but the marriage referendum is set in stone they can't change it without going back to the people but this isn't. Am I correct in saying that?

if they had a dail majority they could certainly repeal the abortion law and make abortion illegal again. they could not get it added back into the constitution though without a referendum. The same with the divorce laws.

ELM327

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Guys can I ask sort of a thick question. I think I've asked it ages ago.
If Ireland elected a party such as Renua or Peadar Toibins new party could these easily make abortion illegal in Ireland again if they had a large amount of seats in the Dail and it would tskes ages with bills/etc
I know this won't happen but the marriage referendum is set in stone they can't change it without going back to the people but this isn't. Am I correct in saying that?

Yes, what we voted for was to allow the government free reign with regards to abortion.


However in reality given the 2:1 margin of victory and the "hot potato" nature of the topic, it will sit as it is now and not be touched again for another generation at least.

bullvine

Do I understand this correctly? It was refused cause she has gone over 12 weeks? Is that correct? thanks

ELM327

bullvine wrote: »

Do I understand this correctly? It was refused cause she has gone over 12 weeks? Is that correct? thanks

12 weeks is the "abortion on demand" criteria


However as this was a confirmed FFA case the 12 weeks does not apply.

amcalester

bullvine wrote: »

Do I understand this correctly? It was refused cause she has gone over 12 weeks? Is that correct? thanks

We don't know why it was refused, but as her child was diagnosed with a FFA the 12 week restriction is irrelevant.

ohnonotgmail

bullvine wrote: »

Do I understand this correctly? It was refused cause she has gone over 12 weeks? Is that correct? thanks

Well we don't know why it was refused but it is not because it was over 12 weeks. Over 12 weeks it is allowed to have an abortion if the fetus has a FFA which is the case here. two doctors recommended that she have one. the hospital board said no for reasons unknown.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

I’m going to reserve judgement on this development until we know more.

Really, there’s going to be teething problems. This is a sea change. It’s going to take a while to bed in the new services and work around doctors and surgical staff who don’t want to perform abortions. I’m very confident that all will be well, it will just take a while.