Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Mark Hamill

Bredabe wrote: »

#thenorthisNOW

I don't think hash-tags in general are for me, I read that hash-tag as "Then or This NOW" and was mightily confused for a moment :pac:

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't think hash-tags in general are for me, I read that hash-tag as "Then or This NOW" and was mightily confused for a moment :pac:

#CapitalsAreYourFriend

smacl

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I don't think hash-tags in general are for me, I read that hash-tag as "Then or This NOW" and was mightily confused for a moment :pac:

Susan Bolye's album party comes to mind

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

Delay, certainly. What the just-passed law says is that, if the NI executive and assembly are not back up and running by a certain date, the SoS for NI (who has the power to legislate for NI when the assembly is not operating) must make regulations extending equal marriage and access to abortion to NI. However SFAIK no time limit for making those regulations is specified.

This is not going to be a quick process. The new legislation does not say that NI law on these subjects in NI is to be the same as it is in England and Wales (or Scotland, or Ireland - all three jurisdictions have different legal laws in relation to both matters). It just sets out a broad principle, but leaves the details of how that principle is to be given effect in legislation to be worked out later.

This would normally take a while. There'd be reviews of the current law on marriage and on abortion, to see in what respects they fail to comply with the principles, or meet the standards, set out in the new legislation. There would normally be a consultation process, in which the government issues a paper discussing the issues, suggesting ways in which they might be addressed through legislation, and inviting observations from interested stakeholders. There'd then be draft legislation published, and comments invited. Finally, the legislation could be made. It could take a year or more (or less) and, crucially, how fast the process goes depends in part on how enthusiastically the government approaches it. So if they want to soft-pedal it, there is certainly scope for that.

So it should be interesting to see who the No 10 resident appoints to the Sos for NI position. I assume any laws brought into play in N/I by the SoS would be designed to lapse and be non-effective in law in N/I if the assembly got together and the parties there cobbled together a local working arrangements government deal and introduced/passed laws legalizing both abortion and civil marriage equality.

If I'm reading things right, the best thing people in N/I who are Pro-choice and Pro Civil Marriage equality can/should hope for is that S/F and DUP don't get Stormont up and running again till the certain date deadline is gone by and things are irrevocable. After that date is gone by, the only thing any N/I Govt cobbled together by the two parties can do is fiddle and debate perspectives in law, they cant bat away what the deadline has made irrevocable. On that basis, the best thing for S/F to do is NOT to re-enter Govt with the DUP and they come out smelling of roses when it comes to their base south of the border.

Its hard for me to tell if the same would apply for them in N/I as S/F seems to use a different rulebook north of the border when it comes to Irish persons civil rights there, as distinct from the Irish persons civil rights rulebook they use south of the border on the two issues. Any news reports I see about S/F's N/I stance on the abortion rights issue is that it differs from their south of the border stance.

Any delay in the N/I parties coming to an accord in respect to an inevitable passing of laws by them legalizing Civil Marriage equality and Abortion is something the persons of N/I can/should hold them to account for. Leastways that's what I would appreciate in respect to changes in N/I Civil law on the two issues as legalized in law in the mainland UK and in the republic. People to politicians: Do As I Say Or Else!

Bredabe

Peregrinus wrote: »

Delay, certainly. What the just-passed law says is that, if the NI executive and assembly are not back up and running by a certain date, the SoS for NI (who has the power to legislate for NI when the assembly is not operating) must make regulations extending equal marriage and access to abortion to NI. However SFAIK no time limit for making those regulations is specified.

This is not going to be a quick process. The new legislation does not say that NI law on these subjects in NI is to be the same as it is in England and Wales (or Scotland, or Ireland - all three jurisdictions have different legal laws in relation to both matters). It just sets out a broad principle, but leaves the details of how that principle is to be given effect in legislation to be worked out later.

This would normally take a while. There'd be reviews of the current law on marriage and on abortion, to see in what respects they fail to comply with the principles, or meet the standards, set out in the new legislation. There would normally be a consultation process, in which the government issues a paper discussing the issues, suggesting ways in which they might be addressed through legislation, and inviting observations from interested stakeholders. There'd then be draft legislation published, and comments invited. Finally, the legislation could be made. It could take a year or more (or less) and, crucially, how fast the process goes depends in part on how enthusiastically the government approaches it. So if they want to soft-pedal it, there is certainly scope for that.

From what I read, it seems it will become legal on that October date, regardless(as its in the hands of higher govt), at that point, things like importation or seeking info would be available freely.

aloyisious

Bredabe wrote: »

From what I read, it seems it will become legal on that October date, regardless(as its in the hands of higher govt), at that point, things like importation or seeking info would be available freely.

There's the existence of current laws introduced from within N/I forbidding some practices with criminal sanction against offenders. Hopefully any legalities introduced as a result of the Westminster votes and a new Sec of State will include provisions that set aside/annul each and every piece of existing N/I local legislation against abortion services, advice and civil marriage equality. The new changes must be proof from any challenge within the N/I courts system.

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

Any news reports I see about S/F's N/I stance on the abortion rights issue is that it differs from their south of the border stance.

They don't seem to be entirely clear about their stance.
https://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/politics/abortion-sinn-fein-backs-westminster-legislation-after-near-two-week-silence-1-9007728

Yesterday Sinn Fein did not contradict what Mrs Foster had said, but told the Nolan Show that “Arlene Foster should not speak for Sinn Fein”. The party said it did not support the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act – which is less radical than the proposed legislation – to Northern Ireland.

Does anyone know if it has to be all or nothing with this legislation? Will it be possible for the NI Executive, if it ever gets up and running again, to 'water it down' on terms agreed by SF and the DUP? Or if SF tries to do that, would it be opening the way for the DUP to block liberalisation entirely?

Igotadose

Piece in the Journal about conscientious objection impacting the ability to provide needed medical services in hospitals in Ireland:
https://www.thejournal.ie/conscientious-objection-abortion-hospital-4725826-Jul2019/

This is too bad. The conscientious objectors should be consolidated into one hospital and replaced with legitimate medical providers so women's health and wellbeing can be supported. Plus the conscientious objectors names should be available so women can choose properly when deciding which medical facility to use. Relying on a 'grapevine' for that information is fraught with peril, when time is of the essence.

Cabaal

Igotadose wrote: »

Piece in the Journal about conscientious objection impacting the ability to provide needed medical services in hospitals in Ireland:
https://www.thejournal.ie/conscientious-objection-abortion-hospital-4725826-Jul2019/

This is too bad. The conscientious objectors should be consolidated into one hospital and replaced with legitimate medical providers so women's health and wellbeing can be supported. Plus the conscientious objectors names should be available so women can choose properly when deciding which medical facility to use. Relying on a 'grapevine' for that information is fraught with peril, when time is of the essence.

It's deeply concerning if we allow these people to have their way, at the end of the day if a medical treatment is legal and should be provided under the HSE then the doctors should be providing that service.

It's also a slippery slope, whats next...
- extreme Christian and Muslim male doctors refusing to treat/touch women?
- people refusing to treat/touch people of colour due to religious beliefs?
- Jehovah's Witnesses doctors refusing to use blood donations in hospitals?

Peregrinus

"What about secularist doctors who refuse to treat religious patients?"

We can all play whataboutery, Cabaal. "Extreme Christian and Muslim male doctors refusing to treat/touch women" is not a real-world problem, not least because neither Christianity nor Islam forbids doctors from treating or touching women. I don't think inventing pejorative characterisations of people you don't like is a terribly useful contribution to a discussion of this kind.

Interestingly, JW doctors not using blood products is a real thing. But it's not a problem or a "slippery slope", since there are more than enough doctors who are perfectly willing to use blood products to meet medical needs. Indeed, it's had positive spinoffs; JW hospitals have pioneered bloodless surgery techniques which have later proven very useful in dealing with patients who, for reasons which may be either religious or medical, won't or can't accept blood products. And they have proven useful in situations arising when the supply of blood products is contaminated or uncertain. (Some of us are old enough to remember the Hepatitis C crisis.) There's a positive side to diversity of approaches to medical practice; before you suppress that diversity you need to demonstrate a need to do so.

The issue here is not whether every single doctor in the country should be forced to behave the way we think he should behave or named, shamed and victimised for not doing so; it's whether women can access the services they need, and are entitled to. For this purpose women don't need help identifying (and "consolidating into one hospital") the doctors who don't provide the service they want; they need to be able to utilise the services of the doctors who do. That's where the focus has to be.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

"What about secularist doctors who refuse to treat religious patients?"

We can all play whataboutery, Cabaal. "Extreme Christian and Muslim male doctors refusing to treat/touch women" is not a real-world problem, not least because neither Christianity nor Islam forbids doctors from treating or touching women. I don't think inventing pejorative characterisations of people you don't like is a terribly useful contribution to a discussion of this kind.

Interestingly, JW doctors not using blood products is a real thing. But it's not a problem or a "slippery slope", since there are more than enough doctors who are perfectly willing to use blood products to meet medical needs. Indeed, it's had positive spinoffs; JW hospitals have pioneered bloodless surgery techniques which have later proven very useful in dealing with patients who, for reasons which may be either religious or medical, won't or can't accept blood products. And they have proven useful in situations arising when the supply of blood products is contaminated or uncertain. (Some of us are old enough to remember the Hepatitis C crisis.) There's a positive side to diversity of approaches to medical practice; before you suppress that diversity you need to demonstrate a need to do so.

The issue here is not whether every single doctor in the country should be forced to behave the way we think he should behave or named, shamed and victimised for not doing so; it's whether women can access the services they need, and are entitled to. For this purpose women don't need help identifying (and "consolidating into one hospital") the doctors who don't provide the service they want; they need to be able to utilise the services of the doctors who do. That's where the focus has to be.

No I think you'll find that it wasn't JW doctors refusing to give patients blood (that would be illegal) but JW patients refusing to be given blood, and doctors trying to find ways to treat them anyway.

It is actually very problematic how doctors are apparently entitled to refuse to care for patients in this particular instance. The fact that other examples have n't yet become a problem (such as female doctors refusing to touch male patients) is not a good enough reason to suppose it won't become one in the future. A few years ago, female teachers wanting to remain fully veiled in the classroom wasn't an issue either, and now it is. This is the problem with allowing religious exceptions to the general rule: by definition it can never satisfy the religious until all their rules are fully applied. Because they are right. The very definition of a slippery slope.

Hotblack Desiato

Peregrinus wrote: »

"What about secularist doctors who refuse to treat religious patients?"

:rolleyes: Poor effort, P.

"Extreme Christian and Muslim male doctors refusing to treat/touch women" is not a real-world problem, not least because neither Christianity nor Islam forbids doctors from treating or touching women.

You never heard the one about gynaecologists in Saudi Arabia using mirrors, then?

The issue here is not whether every single doctor in the country should be forced to behave the way we think he should behave or named, shamed and victimised for not doing so

It's called "acting in the best interests of the patient", not putting one's own religious beliefs above the interests of the patient.

it's whether women can access the services they need, and are entitled to. For this purpose women don't need help identifying (and "consolidating into one hospital") the doctors who don't provide the service they want; they need to be able to utilise the services of the doctors who do. That's where the focus has to be.

Tell that to women in Kilkenny, Sligo, Donegal...

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue here is not whether every single doctor in the country should be forced to behave the way we think he should behave or named, shamed and victimised for not doing so; it's whether women can access the services they need, and are entitled to. For this purpose women don't need help identifying (and "consolidating into one hospital") the doctors who don't provide the service they want; they need to be able to utilise the services of the doctors who do. That's where the focus has to be.

I never said a doctor should be forced or even suggested this,

Bottom line is if they don't want to do something that legals under HSE/laws then go find other employment.

Its all very well to say there's other doctors, but there are two problems with this
- Other doctors mean extra cost for the tax payer to employee them
- No all hospitals have those doctors, for example St Lukes in Kilkenny where all of the doctors refuse to perform a legal medical procedure...they are being lead by a prominent pro-life doctor who was involved in the ref.
- Random hospitals refusing to provide a legal medical procedure means women can live in a county that doesn't offer the services even though they have a large hospital locally!

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

- No all hospitals have those doctors, for example St Lukes in Kilkenny where all of the doctors refuse to perform a legal medical procedure...they are being lead by a prominent pro-life doctor who was involved in the ref.

...who is also accused of carrying out gynaecological procedures without consent.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/gynaecologist-performed-exploratory-work-without-consent-1.3935167

Cabaal

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

...who is also accused of carrying out gynaecological procedures without consent.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/gynaecologist-performed-exploratory-work-without-consent-1.3935167

I was referring to Trevor Hayes
https://kilkennynow.ie/kilkenny-consultant-bullying-maternity-professionals-into-performing-abortions-will-lead-to-a-greater-crisis-in-the-health-system/

smacl

Cabaal wrote: »

I was referring to Trevor Hayes
https://kilkennynow.ie/kilkenny-consultant-bullying-maternity-professionals-into-performing-abortions-will-lead-to-a-greater-crisis-in-the-health-system/

The issue here is that this goes a long way beyond personal conscientious objection, from the article

Dr Trevor Hayes wrote:

Last month’s letter to the IEHG said following discussions between the four consultant obstetricians at St Luke's, it was “decided unanimously that the hospital is not an appropriate location for medical or surgical terminations”.

What this guy is trying to do is to subvert the public health system in favour of his own beliefs which are in stark contrast to the will of the people. While he may reasonably say that he is personally not willing to carry out an abortion, it is not for him to say that abortions should not be carried out in the hospital in which he works. That is not conscientious objection.

uptherebels

Cabaal wrote: »

I was referring to Trevor Hayes
https://kilkennynow.ie/kilkenny-consultant-bullying-maternity-professionals-into-performing-abortions-will-lead-to-a-greater-crisis-in-the-health-system/

Ya he doesn't seem to be the most competent either
https://www.shannonside.ie/news/doctor-admits-several-instances-poor-professional-performance-medical-council-inquiry/

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

The issue here is not whether every single doctor in the country should be forced to behave the way we think he should behave or named, shamed and victimised for not doing so; it's whether women can access the services they need, and are entitled to. For this purpose women don't need help identifying (and "consolidating into one hospital") the doctors who don't provide the service they want; they need to be able to utilise the services of the doctors who do. That's where the focus has to be.

I agree with you on the point you made above which I've copied to fit the "What women need" angle [it's whether women can access the services they need, and are entitled to. For this purpose women don't need help identifying (and "consolidating into one hospital") the doctors who don't provide the service they want; they need to be able to utilise the services of the doctors who do. That's where the focus has to be]. To that end I'd suggest that women know who will provide the service they want. To that end a list of doctors WHO WILL provide the service would be essential to avoid any side-lining of the woman's choice after admission to a maternity hospital.

Ref the other point you made [The issue here is not whether every single doctor in the country should be forced to behave the way we think he should behave or named, shamed and victimised for not doing so] making a list of Doctors WHO DONT would NOT be shaming or victimizing doctors, it would be because some doctors oppose abortion. I reckon by now such doctors will not be hiding their choices where it comes to providing or cooperating with abortion procedures and would prefer to move away from abortion-providing hospitals.

Doctors who oppose abortion would have to be avoided by those women so it goes without saying that women should be FULLY AWARE of doctors whose assistance they need to decline. Either that or the hospitals themselves do the job of delisting from their call-upon doctors lists of doctors who will deny women the service they are legally entitled to. Some-one is going to have to ensure maternity hospital patients have confidence in their doctors and care in the hospitals. To do otherwise would be to deliberately put the health of the women at risk beyond the natural ones they face during pregnancy.

Igotadose

aloyisious wrote: »

Ref the other point you made [The issue here is not whether every single doctor in the country should be forced to behave the way we think he should behave or named, shamed and victimised for not doing so] making a list of Doctors WHO DONT would NOT be shaming or victimizing doctors, it would be because some doctors oppose abortion. I reckon by now such doctors will not be hiding their choices where it comes to providing or cooperating with abortion procedures and would prefer to move away from abortion-providing hospitals.

Doctors who oppose abortion would have to be avoided by those women so it goes without saying that women should be FULLY AWARE of doctors whose assistance they need to decline. Either that or the hospitals themselves do the job of delisting from their call-upon doctors lists of doctors who will deny women the service they are legally entitled to. Some-one is going to have to ensure maternity hospital patients have confidence in their doctors and care in the hospitals. To do otherwise would be to deliberately put the health of the women at risk beyond the natural ones they face during pregnancy.

Let's not underestimate the difficulty in getting this kind of information out to the general public. We merrily chat online all day, but the anti-abortion forces as we are well aware put fake information out there, fake 'mychoice' sites, redirect innocent women to so-called 'crisis pregnancy centers' that spout lie after lie about abortion, all with the goal of forcing the woman to give birth. At a minimum, the Irish government should publish which hospitals do not provide full abortion services on a central website as well as each hospital's information site, as well as a list of GP's and pharmacies that conscientiously object to abortion. If the abortion pill is not available at a particular pharmacy, there should be a sign on the door about that, as well, so women seeking medication don't go there. The HSE should also keep track of such so as to mitigate the problem of no pharmaceutical coverage for large areas, especially if there's a new pharmacy coming it could influence licensing of said pharmacy should it choose to provide abortion medication in an area where the existing pharmacies don't.

Loafing Oaf

Igotadose wrote: »

If the abortion pill is not available at a particular pharmacy, there should be a sign on the door about that, as well, so women seeking medication don't go there. The HSE should also keep track of such so as to mitigate the problem of no pharmaceutical coverage for large areas, especially if there's a new pharmacy coming it could influence licensing of said pharmacy should it choose to provide abortion medication in an area where the existing pharmacies don't.

My understanding is the abortion pill is not distributed through pharmacies at all.

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

My understanding is the abortion pill is not distributed through pharmacies at all.

Umm, anyone know if this is a maybe decision of HSE, medicines board & medical profession heads together decision on a temporary basis [say deputizing the issue duty to GPs and Gynae specialists issuing the medicines under supervision] until they deem it safe to let others deal with women at the pharmacy counter?

Hotblack Desiato

Cabaal wrote: »

I was referring to Trevor Hayes
https://kilkennynow.ie/kilkenny-consultant-bullying-maternity-professionals-into-performing-abortions-will-lead-to-a-greater-crisis-in-the-health-system/

Aren't the women of Kilkenny lucky that all four obstetricians in St. Lukes are so staunchly pro-life? Hayes, O'Sullivan and two muslim doctors

Kilkenny hospital to appoint extra obstetrician to facilitate abortions

splinter65

Amazing. The country is full of oby/gynaes who refuse to do abortions but when Senator Noone was challenged as to why she could only find pro abortion medical professionals to speak she said she searched and searched for an alternative voice and couldn’t find one.... and the pro life people are supposed to be the liars... it beggars belief.

Cabaal

splinter65 wrote: »

Amazing. The country is full of oby/gynaes who refuse to do abortions but when Senator Noone was challenged as to why she could only find pro abortion medical professionals to speak she said she searched and searched for an alternative voice and couldn’t find one.... and the pro life people are supposed to be the liars... it beggars belief.

Doesn't make anybody a liar,

Being pro life in the background in work and being willing to be very public manner with your views are two different things. Even I can see that...doesn't seem you can so you'd rather called people liars.

One way or another however we know that a majority of the country is pro-choice as proven by the ref and accordingly that should be represented in our medical services. Instead we have a minority of pro-lifers dictating the medical services to a majority of pro-choice people in the country.

The Late Late Show

Cabaal wrote: »

Doesn't make anybody a liar,

Being pro life in the background in work and being willing to be very public manner with your views are two different things. Even I can see that...doesn't seem you can so you'd rather called people liars.

One way or another however we know that a majority of the country is pro-choice as proven by the ref and accordingly that should be represented in our medical services. Instead we have a minority of pro-lifers dictating the medical services to a majority of pro-choice people in the country.

These extreme 'Catholic pro-life' types are sickening. They also are the most vocal in their support of the John Bolton dictatorship in America and the wars they fight. The rights of the unborn seem to matter more than the rights of the born. Okay to killed 1000s of innocent citizens in Tehran who are not even true believers in Islam, the religion Bolton's regime hates most. Pro-lifers also tend to be homophobic and are often holocaust deniers too. Such people should be given their own Republic of Gilead in Antarctica with John Bolton as their messiah.

Hotblack Desiato

Wikipedia wrote:

Bolton was a supporter of the Vietnam War, but purposely avoided military service in Vietnam.

Figures.

Loafing Oaf

splinter65 wrote: »

Amazing. The country is full of oby/gynaes who refuse to do abortions but when Senator Noone was challenged as to why she could only find pro abortion medical professionals to speak she said she searched and searched for an alternative voice and couldn’t find one.... and the pro life people are supposed to be the liars... it beggars belief.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/committee-couldn-t-find-any-anti-abortion-medical-experts-to-argue-for-eighth-1.3397941

Senator Noone said no Irish-based consultants or even GPs were made available to the committee.

“The committee secretariat were in touch with many people, to my knowledge both suggested by the committee and otherwise,” she said. “Nobody was willing to come forward, none who were experts in this country. There was no single GP who offered, or any way indicated, that they wanted the status quo to remain.”

Have any of these anti-abortion doctors indicated that they expressed a wish to appear before the committee but were turned down? If such exist it's a bit surprising that none of them have spoken out, surely it would make excellent propaganda for their cause...

end of the road

The Late Late Show wrote: »

These extreme 'Catholic pro-life' types are sickening. They also are the most vocal in their support of the John Bolton dictatorship in America and the wars they fight. The rights of the unborn seem to matter more than the rights of the born. Okay to killed 1000s of innocent citizens in Tehran who are not even true believers in Islam, the religion Bolton's regime hates most. Pro-lifers also tend to be homophobic and are often holocaust deniers too. Such people should be given their own Republic of Gilead in Antarctica with John Bolton as their messiah.

plenty of non-religious, non-homophobic, John Bolton hating pro-lifers.

Hotblack Desiato

Well then isn't it odd how the anti-repeal campagn was so dominated by anti-women, conservative catholic, far-right homophobes - it sucks when the campaign you ally yourself with is so unrepresentative of all of your views except for *that* one.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Well then isn't it odd how the anti-repeal campagn was so dominated by anti-women, conservative catholic, far-right homophobes - it sucks when the campaign you ally yourself with is so unrepresentative of all of your views except for *that* one.

you can disagree with people on many different things but aline with them on 1 issue. that is the beauty about being one's own person rather then being part of a hive mind. even here, the people who i agree with on this issue, i would disagree with them on most other things. but that is perfectly fine.
if someone is an anti-women, conservative catholic, far-right homophobe then that is very unfortunate and they need to rethink, but if i find myself in agreement with them on something, so be it.