Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Loafing Oaf

pleas advice wrote: »

just fyi from the article, wasn't sure what the law was exactly myself

The law states:
“A termination of pregnancy may be carried out in accordance with this section where 2 medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, are of the reasonable opinion formed in good faith that there is present a condition affecting the foetus that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before, or within 28 days of, birth.”

That's interesting. I was thinking the story might be that the doctors weren't sure of the FFA diagnosis and wanted to let the pregnancy develop for a few weeks to confirm it but that stipulation doesn't require a high degree of certainty at all. I suppose they might still be 'erring on the side of caution' though...

Hotblack Desiato

2 obstetricians agreed that she could have an abortion.

uptherebels

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/update-hospitals-have-an-obligation-to-follow-new-abortion-legislation-says-tanaiste-898328.html

Interesting part

"Coombe spokesperson rejected the Dáil claims last night, saying its board, which has not met since Christmas, had no case role: “In the context of the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 and the latest draft Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Pathway for Management of Fatal Fetal Anomalies, the board of guardians and directors of the Coombe has no role whatsoever in certifying a termination of pregnancy.

“Insofar as recent media coverage has stated that the board has had a role in determining whether or not the criteria for certification have been met, those reports are untrue.”

However, at the time of going to press, the Coombe had yet to respond to queries on whether another internal medical board as opposed to the hospital board was involved in the case."

ohnonotgmail

uptherebels wrote: »

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/update-hospitals-have-an-obligation-to-follow-new-abortion-legislation-says-tanaiste-898328.html

Interesting part

"Coombe spokesperson rejected the Dáil claims last night, saying its board, which has not met since Christmas, had no case role: “In the context of the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 and the latest draft Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Pathway for Management of Fatal Fetal Anomalies, the board of guardians and directors of the Coombe has no role whatsoever in certifying a termination of pregnancy.

“Insofar as recent media coverage has stated that the board has had a role in determining whether or not the criteria for certification have been met, those reports are untrue.”

However, at the time of going to press, the Coombe had yet to respond to queries on whether another internal medical board as opposed to the hospital board was involved in the case."

It was probably the abortion thread in A&A where it was mentioned but this is probably mental reservation on behalf of the hospital. What they said is probably true, it just isn't the whole truth.

Hotblack Desiato

“Insofar as recent media coverage has stated that the board has had a role in determining whether or not the criteria for certification have been met, those reports are untrue.”

They could have accepted that the criteria for certification as FFA were met, but still refused it, and that statement above would be perfectly true.

Anyone familiar with the spin coming off the RCC hierarchy whenever a new scandal is exposed will recognise the same very bad smell of mental reservation off this one.

The important part of that sentence isn't "those reports are untrue" but "insofar". They are wording it very carefully to imply that the reports are completely untrue when they are only denying one very specific interpretation of the claims which have been made, NOT the claims as a whole.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nope. They were comparing a surgical abortion to just letting the woman sit there and eventually miscarry



They are claiming to know better than the two obstetricians directly involved in the case. It's amazing the expertise that randomers on the internet have these days... and so what IF a surgical abortion carries a slightly greater risk over and above waiting for a miscarriage? It's still the woman's choice to make and it's the job of the medical professionals to ensure she's fully informed in making that choice.

My mistake, I misread the post.

However we're all of us randomers on the internet with no expertise on the workings of the Coombe or the HSE, and the different parties involved in this case are making different claims. I don't discount the possibility that this could be pro-life obstructionism. It could also be perennial HSE bureaucratic incompetence and nonsense. It could be that it was a particularly complex surgical abortion and no one was confident to carry it out on the basis of that rather than any conscientious issues. It could be that a highly distressed patient misunderstood what was being communicated to her by her medical team, which happens every day.

gmisk

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-refused-abortion-will-travel-to-united-kingdom-1.3762063

Looks like this poor woman is going to have to travel to England with her partner, after borrowing money from people to cover the cost, heartbreaking.

tigger123

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

They could have accepted that the criteria for certification as FFA were met, but still refused it, and that statement above would be perfectly true.

Anyone familiar with the spin coming off the RCC hierarchy whenever a new scandal is exposed will recognise the same very bad smell of mental reservation off this one.

The important part of that sentence isn't "those reports are untrue" but "insofar". They are wording it very carefully to imply that the reports are completely untrue when they are only denying one very specific interpretation of the claims which have been made, NOT the claims as a whole.

God forbid we wait for the two sides of the story before rushing to judgement.

Neither you, I, or anyone else has a complete picture of what did or didn't happen. At best this is third hand information from the opposition in the Dail. I'd wait before rushing to judgement.

Call me Al

So in light of the fact that the patient in question has reportedly travelled to the UK, what is now going to happen with regard to follow up on the process currently in place in the Coombe?
Is the HSE going to investigate the circumstances in this case?

gmisk

tigger123 wrote: »

God forbid we wait for the two sides of the story before rushing to judgement.

Neither you, I, or anyone else has a complete picture of what did or didn't happen. At best this is third hand information from the opposition in the Dail. I'd wait before rushing to judgement.

This story contains first hand information and quotes from the woman involved.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-refused-abortion-will-travel-to-united-kingdom-1.3762063

ohnonotgmail

Call me Al wrote: »

So in light of the fact that the patient in question has reportedly travelled to the UK, what is now going to happen with regard to follow up on the process currently in place in the Coombe?
Is the HSE going to investigate the circumstances in this case?

The same thing that was going to happen before she travelled to the UK. Absolutely nothing.

retro:electro

What does she mean by “the bar is too high for certifying fatal abnormalities”.. this would seem one was not certified in her case but we know two doctors did diagnose it as fatal

tigger123

gmisk wrote: »

This story contains first hand information and quotes from the woman involved.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-refused-abortion-will-travel-to-united-kingdom-1.3762063

It's an account from the woman herself, then from Ruth Coppinger into the Dail. It's currently unsubstantiated and parts of it are refuted by the Coombe.

If the story is as as presented, it's an absolute disgrace, no doubt about it. That poor woman is going through enough and will do without having this added to it.

What I'm saying is, wait for the full facts to come out. It seems very incongruous that the Coombe board would overrule 2 consultants and a GP in these circumstances.

Call me Al

tigger123 wrote: »

It's an account from the woman herself, then from Ruth Coppinger into the Dail. It's currently unsubstantiated and parts of it are refuted by the Coombe.

If the story is as as presented, it's an absolute disgrace, no doubt about it. That poor woman is going through enough and will do without having this added to it.

What I'm saying is, wait for the full facts to come out. It seems very incongruous that the Coombe board would overrule 2 consultants and a GP in these circumstances.

Yes I agree.
And I wonder how many boards there are involved in administration of care in The Coombe, and what their remit and purpose is.

seamus

retro:electro wrote: »

What does she mean by “the bar is too high for certifying fatal abnormalities”.. this would seem one was not certified in her case but we know two doctors did diagnose it as fatal

So even with direct quotes from the individual herself, we are no further along really.

She disputes the claim that the board didn't get involved - as others suggest, it could be a separate internal committee of some kind - but also suggests that the FFA was NOT certified.

As I said yesterday, what a patient thinks they heard, what the doctor thinks they said, and what was actually said are often 3 entirely different things.

This is a fncking mess, I have the deepest sympathy for her. Any woman should be entitled to just request the termination without requiring final sign-off from a doctor unless s/he believes her to be mentally incapable.

Aside from this, perhaps there's a case in general for all consultant/patient appointments to be recorded (audio or video) and retained in the patient's record for later retrieval?

Hotblack Desiato

tigger123 wrote: »

God forbid we wait for the two sides of the story before rushing to judgement.

Neither you, I, or anyone else has a complete picture of what did or didn't happen. At best this is third hand information from the opposition in the Dail. I'd wait before rushing to judgement.

I'm not talking about third hand information in the Dail, but the Coombe's statement. It's full of spin and very carefully worded to imply things it's actually not saying. Why are they doing that? Someone is trying to hide something.

ohnonotgmail

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'm not talking about third hand information in the Dail, but the Coombe's statement. It's full of spin and very carefully worded to imply things it's actually not saying. Why are they doing that? Someone is trying to hide something.

It is a statement that a Jesuit would be proud to write.

Amirani

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

except they've been obliged to provide abortions under POLDPA when the woman's life is in danger, for only the last FIVE YEARS.

Yeah, but that doesn't necessarily have any bearing here. They're quite different cases from the hospital's point of view in terms of resourcing and procedure.

The Coombe has said they're not currently ready to provide abortions under the new act. Whether or not they've performed emergency abortions in the past is not relevant legally to this specific case.

What is shocking though is that it seems the woman in question is having to travel to the UK and can't receive treatment in an Irish hospital that is ready to provide abortions.

Riskymove

Amirani wrote: »

What is shocking though is that it seems the woman in question is having to travel to the UK and can't receive treatment in an Irish hospital that is ready to provide abortions.

why can't she have an abortion via another health Centre?

ELM327

Riskymove wrote: »

why can't she have an abortion via another health Centre?

She shouldn't have to?

Riskymove

ELM327 wrote: »

She shouldn't have to?

well I know that

my point is that it is claimed the Coombe won't do it so "she is going to England"

I am wondering why she just couldn't go elsewhere here

Amirani

Riskymove wrote: »

why can't she have an abortion via another health Centre?

No idea, but I'd like to know why also!

seamus

Riskymove wrote: »

why can't she have an abortion via another health Centre?

Because there is no process for a woman over 12 weeks to present to any hospital or care centre and request an abortion.

She would have to go through at least some of the same process again to have the diagnosis confirmed and the request approved. Which would take several weeks.

Riskymove

seamus wrote: »

Because there is no process for a woman over 12 weeks to present to any hospital or care centre and request an abortion.

She would have to go through at least some of the same process again to have the diagnosis made and confirmed. Which would take several weeks.

thanks for that

Riskymove

seamus wrote: »

Because there is no process for a woman over 12 weeks to present to any hospital or care centre and request an abortion.

She would have to go through at least some of the same process again to have the diagnosis confirmed and the request approved. Which would take several weeks.

just reading up there on it.

that there is a fatal abnormality so an abortion could be carried out beyond 12 weeks. But it would take a few weeks to establish that in another hospital? But she does not want to wait so is thinking of going to UK?

Is that correct?

ohnonotgmail

Riskymove wrote: »

just reading up there on it.

that there is a fatal abnormality so an abortion could be carried out beyond 12 weeks. But it would take a few weeks to establish that in another hospital? But she does not want to wait so is thinking of going to UK?

Is that correct?

Pretty much. Though i think she has already gone.

Hotblack Desiato

If I was her I wouldn't come back :mad:

ELM327

Sometimes this country disgusts me.
This is not what I voted for, we shouldn't be sending women to the UK still.

tigger123

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I'm not talking about third hand information in the Dail, but the Coombe's statement. It's full of spin and very carefully worded to imply things it's actually not saying. Why are they doing that? Someone is trying to hide something.

What is it implying?

Igotadose

Question: what's a 'voluntary hospital'. Per https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/update-hospitals-have-an-obligation-to-follow-new-abortion-legislation-says-tanaiste-898328.html


'A HSE spokesperson declined to comment due to patient confidentiality and because the Coombe is a voluntary hospital.'

Also, all the whining about 'sensitive issue' is yet more stigmatizing of women for having abortions. That sh1te's got to stop, too. The woman in question's made the decision, the fetus is going to *die*. Sure, keep her name confidential, fine. But stop hiding behind 'sensitive issue.' The HSE and this hospital are *in the wrong*, the details are available, why aren't heads rolling at Coombe? What's the name of the midwife that informed the woman that the board has said she needed to wait 4 weeks? That kind of stuff - journalism's pathetic in this country. Name and shame ffs.