Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Cabaal

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He championed abortion. I wonder does he still hold the same view after having a child. He's the minister for health, he's a disaster. The proper checks and balances should have been in place, they weren't, his head goes on the spike.

And what if it was the other way round?
what if the fetus had edwords but could not have an abortion. Who's head gets put on a spike then?

volchitsa

splinter65 wrote: »

An external investigation has been ordered at the National Maternity Hospital into the circumstances involving an abortion after a diagnosis of fatal foetal abnormality.

It is understood a termination of pregnancy was carried out after a screening test was performed privately at the hospital.

The findings indicated the baby had a possible diagnosis of Trisomy 18, also called Edwards syndrome which is recognised as a fatal foetal abnormality under the The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act - which came into force in January.

A spokesman for the National Maternity Hospital said it does not comment on individual cases.

He said he can confirm that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists will conduct a review of a recent case at the hospital.

It is alleged that not all stages of the test results were available before the couple were in a position to make an informed decision.

The results of the final part of the definitive findings of the screening process had not been returned from the UK when the couple were told of the diagnosis.

The couple went ahead with the termination but later learned that the test results later were negative for the anomaly.

It is understood the pregnancy was terminated in the first trimester.

The issue has been brought to the attention of the Minister for Health Simon Harris, who has been called on carry out a a statutory investigation.

The external review is to be carried out by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the UK, who will nominate experts.


I can’t see that the parents have any cause of action against NMH. The abortion was entirely their desicion alone. Abortion is legal here now and the 8th amendment would have saved this baby. FFA is not a medical condition it’s a legal thing. My condolences nonetheless.

The couple should not have been given the diagnosis without all the information being available to them. It's a contradiction of the term "informed decision" - they weren't fully informed.

But trying to use this to say the 8th would have saved the baby is cynical exploitation - the only way that might have happened is by assuming the UK hospital would not have given the partial diagnosis.

Saying a ban on abortion would have saved this baby is like saying a ban on tonsillectomies would have saved the child who died during one in the UK a few years back.

Possible malpractice is the issue here amd needs to be investigated. And while I'm all for accountability, blaming the Minsiter for Health seems a bit much TBF.

smacl

drunkmonkey wrote: »

A healthy child is dead, deal in facts.

A healthy child is not dead. A 15 week old fetus is not a healthy child. An unnecessary termination took place due to a misdiagnosis of FFA. Those are the facts.

Charles Ingles

Very sad the case of misdiagnosis and the resulting death of the young baby in the national maternity hospital.
Heartbreaking for the family, we need to review at the legislation, one case is too many.
And just dismissing a baby as a fetus is something I don't understand.
It's a baby once a woman is pregnant it's a baby

amcalester

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Very sad the case of misdiagnosis and the resulting death of the young baby in the national maternity hospital.
Heartbreaking for the family, we need to review at the legislation, one case is too many.
And just dismissing a baby as a fetus is something I don't understand.
It's a baby once a woman is pregnant it's a baby

One of the oft repeated lines from the anti-choice brigade during the referendum was that we shouldn’t legislate for the hard cases because “hard cases make bad laws” - interesting that now you are calling for a change in legislation to account for a hard case.

Back then 1 case was not enough now it’s too many. More contradictions it seems.

Very sad what happened, hopefully the review will identify who or what was at fault and the necessary steps are taken to stop it happening again.

smacl

Charles Ingles wrote: »

It's a baby once a woman is pregnant it's a baby

That's your opinion, repeating it twice doesn't make it any more true. Personally I also find the opportunistic exploitation of this couple's loss by those with a pro-life agenda repugnant.

amcalester

amcalester wrote: »

Very sad what happened, hopefully the review will identify who or what was at fault and the necessary steps are taken to stop it happening again.

It's more than just "very sad". Sad is your football team losing a match.

This is a life altering moment for the parents. Their lives will now have a clear division between when this happened. What compensation could the state ever give them to make up for this? It's an utter tragedy (and to be expected from our hopeless HSE unfortunately).

Very sad doesn't begin to cover the loss they have suffered.

MFPM

smacl wrote: »

That's your opinion, repeating it twice doesn't make it any more true. Personally I also find the opportunistic exploitation of this couple's loss by those with a pro-life agenda repugnant.

anti-choice is far more appropriate.

MFPM

drunkmonkey wrote: »

He's the minister for health, buck stops with him. It's 100% his fault the proper mechanisms weren't in place to prevent it happening.

That's ridiculous. The issue here is an error in the testing procedure and there needs to be an investigation as to how that happened and to ensure lessons are learned.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You were discussing something with another poster in this post, it had nothing to do with me so I have not ignored you. I am not sure why you have highlighted that post for me.

Yes that was my error. I meant 639 the post directly after it. My bad. But at the same time you should have been able to spot that minor error yourself if you had cared to. 639 was a large post, hard to miss, but you ignored it in it's entirety. Then and now.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

There is not really a question in that post so I have not really ignored you.

Oh bull. The lack of a question mark does not reduce it from being a two way conversation. A conversation you ignored and dropped out of entirely by ignoring just about everything in the post. Then and now.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The closest thing to a question that I can respond to was you pondering what discussing vegetative patients has to do with abortion. Well in my opinion, people who are in a vegetative state can be a useful analogy to explore the topic of abortion. Said comparison has been used for years leading up to the referendum by many people. I guess if you read perhaps posts 620-650 or there about, you will see the context of why the analogy was made.

I too find them a useful comparison to a degree. But only in so far as making the distinction between a conscious sentient entity, and being conscious in the moment. In other words the sole benefit of the comparison is to show why the comparison does NOT hold at all.

A coma patient is a sentient entity. A conscious entity. They may not be actively conscious in that moment, but they are not required to be. Just like someone who is asleep. If I murder you asleep or awake it is still murder. You level of consciousness in that moment, being asleep, has ZERO to do with the morality or ethics of it. So why should it be for a coma patient for example????

The distinction with a fetus in abortion however is the fetus is not conscious, has never been, and simply does not have that faculty at all according to all the science we currently understand on the matter.

There is no comparison there. Yet as you point out, people insisted on making one anyway during the referendum debates.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Firstly I do not speak for Ben Shapiro, I do not follow his work, I have seen a few videos of him debating and that about it. I find his voice a little annoying actually. I posted a video showing Ben talking about abortion and he did not seem to bring his faith into it.

He brought something just as bad into it. Outright, patent, demonstrable lies. Very similar. "Faith" tends to be claims about things the speaker has absolutely ZERO evidence for. Making claims about reality that you have no basis for is akin to lying to me. YOU.... no one else.... YOU cited this video and I think you further eroded your own credibility by doing so given how dishonest and distortion based the speakers points were. I would, as should you with even the minimum application of self awareness, be mightily embarrassed to have been seen to cite such a crock of guff and dishonesty.

If you find you are not embarrassed to have done so, I can only prescribe a serious and very elongated bout of introspection on the matter.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

You also said in this post that there is no current evidence to say a 24 week old fetus is sentient. That is just factually incorrect. If a child is born at 24 weeks, he or she is most certainly sentient.

Not so at all. There is no evidence for this. Could you substantiate this claim please? Maybe with an introduction defining what you think "sentient" means in this context. Clue: It has nothing to do with viability.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Lastly, I never said every abortion was the result of an unplanned pregnancy.

Nor, I trust you will note, did I claim you did. So I am not sure what this statement is for other than filler.

What I did say and do however was point out that while we are talking about the efficacy rates of contraception.... it also pays to remember that that is only part of the big picture. Many people seeking abortion are doing so despite having a PLANNED pregnancy. And we should not lose sight of that while discussing unplanned ones.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I think whatever way I put it, people will avoid answering. It has happened on thread already.

I certainly will not avoid answering. I think you are only maintaining the narrative that people will avoid answering by only targeting the users you already believe will. Without discussing it with the ones who have not yet dodged one of your questions EVER. Such as me.

My position on it is quite clear. The moment the fetus reaches a stage of development at which we have any reason to believe it has become a sentient agent, then it has rights. And the mother no longer has the right to kill it. I would certainly therefore deny her that right.

What I would allow for however is for her not to have to carry the entire pregnancy. The moment we have reason to believe we can terminate the pregnancy and maintain the life of the child.... we should do so at her request.

See? Not so hard to answer now was it? You can now openly and honestly and loudly retract your claim we will avoid answering you.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Can I ask you this? Would you be against legislating for on demand abortion up to 24 weeks?

I am comfortable with 12, 16, even 20 weeks. At 24 weeks it starts to get grey. Actually we have good reason to STILL think the fetus has not attained sentience at that point but I am less inclined to stand by it as a scientific fact. So I would certainly start to get uncomfortable around then. But neither would I lose sleep if I woke up in an Ireland with 24 week abortion tomorrow.

Thankfully however the near totality of choice based abortion ALWAYS happens.... we are talking 95-98% of the time..... in or before week 16. Actually over 90% in or before week 12. And this statistic appears to hold true in countries with NO legal abortion, in countries with 24 week legal abortion, or in countries like Canada with no theoretical limits on abortion.

So in THAT light I would not really legislate for 24 weeks as it is pretty much not required except for some rare outlier cases which we could legislate for separately, if at all.

nozzferrahhtoo

Charles Ingles wrote: »

You are mixing up the old testament and the new testament.

They quoted claims from both of them. How is that mixing them up?

Charles Ingles wrote: »

And Our lady did give birth to out saviour Jesus Christ.

Evidence please. That is quite a specific claim and by the lights of this forum you are expected to substantiate your claims on request.

Charles Ingles wrote: »

You may not believe but have a bit of respect for people of faith

We should respect people, not ideas. Do not pretend that our lack of respect for your absolutely unsubstantiated and nonsense claims... is the same as a lack of respect for the people who believe those claims. They are two different things.

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Can I ask you a question if you don't mind, do you believe in an after life or when you die is that it?

I have seen ZERO evidence that human consciousness, sentience, or subjective experience survives the death of the brain in any way at all.

Charles Ingles wrote: »

That's why I'm so passionate about abortion I believe we all have a soul even the tiniest of babies in a mother's womb.

Then by all means YOU should never avail of abortion services for yourself or vicariously through anyone else.

But until you can substantiate your claims about souls, perhaps you should be voting for legislation to allow OTHERS to do what they want in that scenario. YOUR fantasy about an after life should be yours alone and not curtail the rights, freedoms, and choices of people who are not you.

Charles Ingles wrote: »

And just dismissing a baby as a fetus is something I don't understand. It's a baby once a woman is pregnant it's a baby

That you do not understand it is confusing given how often, and how well, it has been explained to you and others over 1000s of posts on this multi-thread so far.

However I am perfectly willing and able and open to explaining it to you again. Have you any questions? Where would you like me to start?

nozzferrahhtoo

splinter65 wrote: »

Shouting in capitals doesn’t make you right Susie. It’s just your opinion that’s all. Any comment to make on this latest debacle?

What comment is required? ALL medical intervention, if you trawl the literature, will turn up isolated cases of error and misdiagnosis. It happens all the time. Abortion is nothing new here.

It does not mean it is not unfortunate, but it is not relevant. There WILL be people who opt for abortion on information that later turns out to be false or in error. Medical Science is not perfect.

So this "case" is only a case of something we all knew was going to happen. It has happened before. It WILL happen again.

What we can do is attempt to learn from each case such as this to improve procedures, tests, evaluations and decision making in the future. And if malpractice is involved the staff in question should be retrained or removed.

We must LEARN from it. Nothing more. We certainly should not chop off an entire limb to create an infection in a toe like a "the 8th would save babies like this" response from you.

What relevance do YOU think it has and what form of comment do you require?

Deleted User wrote: »

What compensation could the state ever give them to make up for this?

Many times in the past I have heard people on TV and Radio shows who have had the medical system fail them in some way. Quite often they start a campaign in response to raise awareness in society and the government about what happened. It can be very moving, especially when the loss.... or perceived loss.... of a child is involved.

So to answer your question I do not know how you could ever fully "Compensate" parents in such a scenario. But a damn good place to start is to take notice, open communication, and show that your awareness as a government has been raised by the case in question. And you intend to use the experience and knowledge to improve things in Legislation, society, and for other people in similar situations.

Damn good place to start, wouldn't you agree? Showing such people that their turmoil is ultimately going to effect change and COUNT for something.

amcalester

Deleted User wrote: »

Very sad doesn't begin to cover the loss they have suffered.

I don't think anyone has said it did, I know I didn't.

splinter65

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

How is it a debacle? The couple in question sought an abortion based on the information available at the time. The abortion was a success, hindsight of course is always 20/20

A perfectly healthy baby is dead and parents are grieving.
Because the 8th amendment was removed.
If a dead baby as a result of a change in legislation isn’t a debacle then what is?

Charles Ingles

smacl wrote: »

That's your opinion, repeating it twice doesn't make it any more true. Personally I also find the opportunistic exploitation of this couple's loss by those with a pro-life agenda repugnant.

Would that apply to pro-abortion advocates who use cases in the other extreme as an excuse to repeal the eighth amendment?

splinter65

Cabaal wrote: »

And what if it was the other way round?
what if the fetus had edwords but could not have an abortion. Who's head gets put on a spike then?

Then a baby would have been born sooner or later like all babies and possibly been born already dead or died soon after birth. What’s your point?

Charles Ingles

splinter65 wrote: »

A perfectly healthy baby is dead and parents are grieving.
Because the 8th amendment was removed.
If a dead baby as a result of a change in legislation isn’t a debacle then what is?

We need to suspend the repealing of the eight amendment until we find out what happened to ensure this can't happen again

splinter65

smacl wrote: »

That's your opinion, repeating it twice doesn't make it any more true. Personally I also find the opportunistic exploitation of this couple's loss by those with a pro-life agenda repugnant.

But not the same as hauling Savita Halapanaveer out at every opportunity at all......

smacl

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What comment is required? ALL medical intervention, if you trawl the literature, will turn up isolated cases of error and misdiagnosis. It happens all the time. Abortion is nothing new here.

It does not mean it is not unfortunate, but it is not relevant. There WILL be people who opt for abortion on information that later turns out to be false or in error. Medical Science is not perfect.

So this "case" is only a case of something we all knew was going to happen. It has happened before. It WILL happen again.

What we can do is attempt to learn from each case such as this to improve procedures, tests, evaluations and decision making in the future. And if malpractice is involved the staff in question should be retrained or removed.

Agreed, and for those who aren't already aware of, our national maternity hospital is an extremely pressured environment doing the very best they can under exceptionally difficult circumstances. There are tragic outcomes on a regular basis that could in many cases be avoided if we as a society provided our midwives and doctors with proper working conditions, a decent salary, and the full respect they are due for the incredible work they put in. While this case is tragic, it is only in the limelight as it involves the emotive topic of abortion. For anyone who genuinely considers themselves 'pro-life', as opposed to simply 'anti-abortion', you might ask yourselves how many more lives could be saved here?

drunkmonkey

smacl wrote: »

A healthy child is not dead. A 15 week old fetus is not a healthy child. An unnecessary termination took place due to a misdiagnosis of FFA. Those are the facts.

It's up to 28 weeks. Fetus is cold those parents had made a child. There doesn't seem to have been a misdiagnosis, the diagnosis was incomplete. Somebody has committed a serious offence. Let's hope they are prosecuted for ending a life. The bar needs to be set high in this case.

amcalester

Charles Ingles wrote: »

We need to suspend the repealing of the eight amendment until we find out what happened to ensure this can't happen again

You can't suspend something that has already happened.

splinter65

smacl wrote: »

A healthy child is not dead. A 15 week old fetus is not a healthy child. An unnecessary termination took place due to a misdiagnosis of FFA. Those are the facts.

Had they not chosen to have an abortion they would currently be expecting to deliver a healthy baby. The 8th amendment would have protected that potentially healthy baby. Those are also facts.

nozzferrahhtoo

splinter65 wrote: »

A perfectly healthy baby is dead and parents are grieving. Because the 8th amendment was removed. If a dead baby as a result of a change in legislation isn’t a debacle then what is?

It was a fetus not a baby. But there are ALSO babies in our world dead due to drugs that are approved and on the market. People have died, though in small numbers, due to a reaction to a Vaccine for example.

ALL medical interventions have the risk of death or harm. For something to be an actual "debacle" it has to be shown that the procedure or treatment does more harm than good.

Like that drug that left people with missing limbs and with dwarfism. I STILL see people going around in those tiny Electronic chairs here in Germany who were harmed by that drug. Adults the size my child was at 3 forced to drive around in tiny chairs. THAT was an actual debacle.

But a single death or misdiagnosis within the realm of an entire medical intervention issue? "Debacle" is mere hyperbole there. Especially as "debacle" should be related to something we had no way to see coming. That is not true here. We know, and always have known, that if people are choosing abortion based on medical diagnosis.... that somewhere sometime that medical diagnosis will have been wrong.

For example take cancer treatment. Some treatments can be lethal. We do them because the chance they are lethal is LESS than the chance the cancer will be. Do you honestly believe no one has ever been treated for a cancer they later turned out not to even have? That there has NEVER been a misdiagnosis of cancer? Should we suspend all cancer treatment in the light of such an isolated case, or is only abortion your hyperbole comes on line for?

We KNOW this in medicine. You might not know it as a lay man. But that does not make it a debacle. It just means the lay man is.... well a lay man. As well they should be. You should inform yourself more if you are interested in medicine.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

There doesn't seem to have been a misdiagnosis, the diagnosis was incomplete. Somebody has committed a serious offence.

IF that turns out to be true, after an actual conviction by a medical board and not by some random poster on the internet with an agenda.... then yes it should be treated as a case of medical malpractice like any other. Nothing to do with abortion. Absolutely without reservation agree that in THAT case the staff involved need to be retrained, removed, or revoked as their conviction decrees.

It still would not be AT ALL an anti abortion argument or a call to reinstate the 8th as some on this thread wish to manufacture it.

Cabaal

Charles Ingles wrote: »

We need to suspend the repealing of the eight amendment until we find out what happened to ensure this can't happen again

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

First off you can't suspend something that has already happened, its been repealed. You can't suspect the repealing of something when its already been repealed.

Second off, you can't stop a democratically voted for change based on one hard case. Instead you investigate the cause and improve checks in the process.
If you were to temp ban ALL abortions then you are going against the will of the Irish people and against our constitution.

I expect nothing different from a pro-lifer, like your US buddy's you appear to care little about constitutions and constitution rights.

Cabaal

splinter65 wrote: »

Then a baby would have been born sooner or later like all babies and possibly been born already dead or died soon after birth. What’s your point?

and if the couple didn't want to go through all that and wanted an abortion?

Bannasidhe

splinter65 wrote: »

Had they not chosen to have an abortion they would currently be expecting to deliver a healthy baby. The 8th amendment would have protected that potentially healthy baby. Those are also facts.

You simply cannot say that with any certainty.
You do not know they wouldn't have traveled - like so many others who had a diagnosis of FFA.

Plus, the sad and tragic fact is they chose- we do not know if they were aware that all the test results weren't back, we do not know if they sought a second opinion before making their decision.

Personally, I have heard enough horror stories coming out of Irish maternity hospitals (resulting in huge compensation payouts) that I would always seek a second opinion. Ironic considering in the run up to the 8th Ref the retain said were insisting Irish maternity care was first rate and any deaths were tragic, and rare, mistakes.

seasidedub

This case is not as clear cut as it seems. There should not be a general panic.

The panorama/harmony tests are screening and not diagnostic. A positive result would require an actual diagnostic test in order for a termination to be sanctioned. One test has a margin of error due to something called placental mosaicism - the placenta has a different karyotype (chromosomal picture) to the foetus. Rare, but happens. The case will hinge on whether this was explained to the couple.

Again - not clear cut, not a cause for panic and certainly not a cause to repeal the amnendment which we voted for

Bannasidhe

seasidedub wrote: »

This case is not as clear cut as it seems. There should not be a general panic.

The panorama/harmony tests are screening and not diagnostic. A positive result would require an actual diagnostic test in order for a termination to be sanctioned. One test has a margin of error due to something called placental mosaicism - the placenta has a different karyotype (chromosomal picture) to the foetus. Rare, but happens. The case will hinge on whether this was explained to the couple.

Again - not clear cut, not a cause for panic and certainly not a cause to repeal the amnendment which we voted for

I may be misremembering but I seem to recall the Anti-Repeal lobby was also insisting that the clause to allow abortion after 12 weeks in the case of a diagnosis of FFA was unnecessary as all the relevant tests could be preformed prior to 12 weeks.

Obviously, they can't.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You simply cannot say that with any certainty.
You do not know they wouldn't have traveled - like so many others who had a diagnosis of FFA.

Plus, the sad and tragic fact is they chose- we do not know if they were aware that all the test results weren't back, we do not know if they sought a second opinion before making their decision.

Personally, I have heard enough horror stories coming out of Irish maternity hospitals (resulting in huge compensation payouts) that I would always seek a second opinion. Ironic considering in the run up to the 8th Ref the retain said were insisting Irish maternity care was first rate and any deaths were tragic, and rare, mistakes.

Ah now you can't go throwing their statements from before the vote back at them, they will either have to lie and say they never said such a thing or come up with some statement that abortion is now mandatory since the 8th has been repealed.

Cabaal

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I may be misremembering but I seem to recall the Anti-Repeal lobby was also insisting that the clause to allow abortion after 12 weeks in the case of a diagnosis of FFA was unnecessary as all the relevant tests could be preformed prior to 12 weeks.

Obviously, they can't.

Facts never stopped the no side from making false claims