Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks
Options
Comments
-
So we keep hearing. Doesn’t make it right.
Nor does it make it wrong. So right back at you. To make it wrong you would have to erect an actual moral or ethical argument to indict the act of terminating a 0-16 week old fetus. This you have not done. But do not feel bad. No one else has either.Doesn’t matter a toss if it’s a woman or a man. Killing shouldn’t be a choice, regardless of its location.
But killing IS a choice all the time. Had a steak recently? Swatted a fly? Used paper? Taken an anti biotic?
We kill all the time. So if we want to morally indict any one killing, or type of killing, you need a more cohesive and coherent argument than merely labelling it "killing". Or merely labelling anyone who shares your opinion "sane" to imply the opposite of everyone else.Taking another persons life should never be an acceptable choice.
100% agree! The problem here however is the word "person" is not one you have mapped onto the fetus in even the smallest way.
No one here is advocating the killing of PEOPLE. You are just pretending they are for emotive effect.I’d rather everyone be give the chance at having their voice heard, at least once.
Two points here.
The first is that their voice was heard in a way, through the people who voted in our referendum on their behalf. Problem is that they lost that vote by a large margin.
The second however is that you are pretending they have a voice TO be heard. This are fetuses. They do not have such a faculty to even "want" anything in the first place. There is noONE there to want anything.
Your average cow on the way to becoming a steak has more desires, wants, and agendas than a fetus. A fetus has the same number of them as your average rock. Yet you feel no moral or ethical compassion for rocks and, unless you are a vegetarian, for steaks.
So what you are doing therefore is taking YOUR faculty of "voice" and projecting it. Nothing more.0 -
I'm very confused by this case.
Last year I had NIPT done on the advice of my consultant in Holles Street. This consisted of a very detailed scan and bloodtest done at 12 weeks approx. The following week I got a call from my consultant advising there was a high risk result for trisomy 18. High risk for this test is anything over 1%-in my case the risk was classed as 11%. She then advised amniocentesis at 16 weeks, for diagnostic purposes and to reduce the risk of miscarriage. I agreed to proceed and had this testing done, along with another very detailed scan. The initial results tested for t13, t18 and t21. These came back within a week and thankfully all were clear. Then there was a wait of another week for the full set of results for all chromosones and again thankfully this was also clear.
I can't understand how a decision to terminate was made without waiting for all test results. When I was having all these tests the focus was on getting as much information as possible in order to make an informed decision. CVS can be done earlier but it isn't conclusive, amniocentesis is. There must be a full review of this case but this case should not be used to deny choices to anyone else.
I'm confused too. I expected maternity hospitals to have formal procedures in instances like this, just as you describe above. Obviously any parents have the right to terminate a pregnancy in accordance with current legislation, but otherwise that rushed decisions would not be taken in the absence of all test results being reviewed and discussed thoroughly. I mean why do the test in the first place if not for further information in making serious decisions?.
Reading this morning's Irish Times the couple in question claim they were told by the relevant medical staff that it was essentially pointless to wait for the second set of results, in spite of the couple expressing their own concerns as to the chance of error with sample 1.
It's almost the flip side of the scenario with another couple in the media earlier this year, who claim they were initially told their baby had a FFA, but extensive further analysis by medical staff concluded that whilst the baby did have extensive abnormalities it wasnt conclusive at that stage that those health issues were fatal. There didn't seem to be any sense of being rushed into making decisions, unlike what allegedly appears to have transpired here.0 -
I'm very confused by this case.
Last year I had NIPT done on the advice of my consultant in Holles Street. This consisted of a very detailed scan and bloodtest done at 12 weeks approx.
The following week I got a call from my consultant advising there was a high risk result for trisomy 18. High risk for this test is anything over 1%-in my case the risk was classed as 11%. She then advised amniocentesis at 16 weeks, for diagnostic purposes and to reduce the risk of miscarriage. I agreed to proceed and had this testing done, along with another very detailed scan. The initial results tested for t13, t18 and t21. These came back within a week and thankfully all were clear. Then there was a wait of another week for the full set of results for all chromosones and again thankfully this was also clear.
I can't understand how a decision to terminate was made without waiting for all test results. When I was having all these tests the focus was on getting as much information as possible in order to make an informed decision. CVS can be done earlier but it isn't conclusive, amniocentesis is. There must be a full review of this case but this case should not be used to deny choices to anyone else.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but the timeline from the first test to getting a 100% conclusive result that all was okay took about five to six weeks? Bringing you up to nearly 17/18 weeks pregnant?0 -
Yes, about 5-6 weeks altogether. I was nearly 18 weeks when we got the results of the full screen. Meant to say these tests aren't processed in Ireland. Some went to the USA and others went to Scotland for analysis. So there'd be a couple of days delay in sending samples.I'm very confused by this case.
Last year I had NIPT done on the advice of my consultant in Holles Street. This consisted of a very detailed scan and bloodtest done at 12 weeks approx.
The following week I got a call from my consultant advising there was a high risk result for trisomy 18. High risk for this test is anything over 1%-in my case the risk was classed as 11%. She then advised amniocentesis at 16 weeks, for diagnostic purposes and to reduce the risk of miscarriage. I agreed to proceed and had this testing done, along with another very detailed scan. The initial results tested for t13, t18 and t21. These came back within a week and thankfully all were clear. Then there was a wait of another week for the full set of results for all chromosones and again thankfully this was also clear.
I can't understand how a decision to terminate was made without waiting for all test results. When I was having all these tests the focus was on getting as much information as possible in order to make an informed decision. CVS can be done earlier but it isn't conclusive, amniocentesis is. There must be a full review of this case but this case should not be used to deny choices to anyone else.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but the timeline from the first test to getting a 100% conclusive result that all was okay took about five to six weeks? Bringing you up to nearly 17/18 weeks pregnant?0 -
Yes, about 5-6 weeks altogether. I was nearly 18 weeks when we got the results of the full screen. Meant to say these tests aren't processed in Ireland. Some went to the USA and others went to Scotland for analysis. So there'd be a couple of days delay in sending samples.
Thats a long time to not know. In those circumstances, I can fully understand why a couple might decide to act on the results of the CVS, without putting themselves through waiting another couple of weeks on the 0.15% off chance (or whatever it is) that the CVS was wrong.
In their shoes, I honestly think I would have made the same decision.0 -
Advertisement
-
can you link the article you're refering to ?what I read yesterday on this article, the tragedy was not only being told not to wait for second set of results, but how they were also advised there is no need for a different test they asked for (=amniocentesis). so imo, this thread should not be really about the debate pro-choice/pro-life, when the root cause is what is happening under the HSE umbrella.Call me Al wrote: »I'm confused too. I expected maternity hospitals to have formal procedures in instances like this, just as you describe above. Obviously any parents have the right to terminate a pregnancy in accordance with current legislation, but otherwise that rushed decisions would not be taken in the absence of all test results being reviewed and discussed thoroughly. I mean why do the test in the first place if not for further information in making serious decisions?.
Reading this morning's Irish Times the couple in question claim they were told by the relevant medical staff that it was essentially pointless to wait for the second set of results, in spite of the couple expressing their own concerns as to the chance of error with sample 1.0 -
But then why complain that the final test was a different result? If they proceeded knowing the test was not conclusive I struggle to see what they hope to achieve. You're told these tests are not 100 % conclusive apart from amniocentesis.Yes, about 5-6 weeks altogether. I was nearly 18 weeks when we got the results of the full screen. Meant to say these tests aren't processed in Ireland. Some went to the USA and others went to Scotland for analysis. So there'd be a couple of days delay in sending samples.
Thats a long time to not know. In those circumstances, I can fully understand why a couple might decide to act on the results of the CVS, without putting themselves through waiting another couple of weeks on the 0.15% off chance (or whatever it is) that the CVS was wrong.
In their shoes, I honestly think I would have made the same decision.0 -
Thats a long time to not know. In those circumstances, I can fully understand why a couple might decide to act on the results of the CVS, without putting themselves through waiting another couple of weeks on the 0.15% off chance (or whatever it is) that the CVS was wrong.
In their shoes, I honestly think I would have made the same decision.
I understand what you mean.
I think what the couple are claiming in this case is that the medical professionals were discounting any need to wait on any results for any follow up tests, despite the couple's own misgivings, that this initial screening they had done was effectively conclusive, without any need to confirm with any other tests.
To me that's wrong. Fair enough if the couple themselves say they want a termination as per the legislation, but a doctor can't and shouldn't sign off an FFA unless they are certain of their facts, and in this case they obviously weren't as they hadn't got all test results back.
The Master of I think the Rotunda spoke on the radio on Friday and said procedure there is not to jump to any definite action until all facts are known. That means waiting for all test results to be assessed..0 -
But have you been in a similar situation yourself ? I have, in a way. So my experience is that when parents want a baby, they would wait as much as it is needed, spend as much money as they can for other tests, hoping to be told that the baby is OK.Thats a long time to not know. In those circumstances, I can fully understand why a couple might decide to act on the results of the CVS, without putting themselves through waiting another couple of weeks on the 0.15% off chance (or whatever it is) that the CVS was wrong.
In their shoes, I honestly think I would have made the same decision.
- currently I am inclined to think these parents were not provided with all support required from medical staff, until more information about the investigation will be revealed.
PS: I would be pro-choice on the general debate.0 -
But then why complain that the final test was a different result? If they proceeded knowing the test was not conclusive I struggle to see what they hope to achieve. You're told these tests are not 100 % conclusive apart from amniocentesis.
That's what I too am wondering about. I can only speak for myself, but I am assuming that the reason they are now complaining is because they feel they weren't given all the information.
You're the second lady that I've read on this thread who has confirmed that when she went through a similar ordeal she was thoroughly advised, so I am wondering what happened differently in this case.
I guess we'll only find out when there is a full inquiry.0 -
Advertisement
-
I preferred to wait for a conclusive result.
I'm vehemently pro choice. I'm pretty sure if the news hadn't been good I would have continued the pregnancy even if termination had been an option here. Thankfully we didn't need to make that choice.0 -
"The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 allows for a termination:
under section 11, where two medical practitioners are of the opinion formed in good faith that 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;
What does an opinion formed in good faith actually mean ? Sounds a bit wishy-washy, casual or open to interpretation to me. Surely there should be diagnostic solid rules as regards what informs that good faith opinion or tighter wording in the legislation for the protection of both the doctors and the parents and not forgetting the baby because as everyone says, ffa babies are wanted babies. I remember hearing Peter Boylan or someone at the time of the Repeal vote saying doctors needed to repeal in order to properly look after their patients. This woman was a patient and it doesn't sound like she thinks she was properly looked after. Far from it, she lost a healthy baby due to their 'good faith opinion'. And she is likely to sue the very doctors who presumably thought they were acting in 'good faith'. In practice going forward I guess every test will be insisted on by doctors or get parents to sign a waiver or something.0 -
can you link the article you're refering to ?what I read yesterday on this article, the tragedy was not only being told not to wait for second set of results, but how they were also advised there is no need for a different test they asked for (=amniocentesis). so imo, this thread should not be really about the debate pro-choice/pro-life, when the root cause is what is happening under the HSE umbrella.
I think it may be the article I read.
I'm unsure, since you refer to it above, if you have the impression that I am debating pro-choice v pro-life? I'm not.
I'm simply wondering if there is standard best practice in our maternity hospitals for cases such as this. There should be. I'm hoping this case didnt transpire as the couple in question claim it did, but if it did then it's terrible. But questions do need to be asked.0 -
But have you been in a similar situation yourself ? I have, in a way. So my experience is that when parents want a baby, they would wait as much as it is needed, spend as much money as they can for other tests, hoping to be told that the baby is OK.
- currently I am inclined to think these parents were not provided with all support required from medical staff, until more information about the investigation will be revealed.
PS: I would be pro-choice on the general debate.
Not this exact situation, no, but I have been in the situation where I was told that prescribed medication I was on before I found out I was pregnant could have affected my baby but there was no way to know for sure until after the baby was born. There were no tests, and abortion was not an option. (This was back in the eighties). I spent the next few weeks terrified of what I could be facing until I eventually miscarried at 13 weeks.0 -
"The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 allows for a termination:
under section 11, where two medical practitioners are of the opinion formed in good faith that 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;
What does an opinion formed in good faith actually mean ? Sounds a bit wishy-washy, casual or open to interpretation to me. Surely there should be diagnostic solid rules as regards what informs that good faith opinion or tighter wording in the legislation for the protection of both the doctors and the parents and not forgetting the baby because as everyone says, ffa babies are wanted babies. I remember hearing Peter Boylan or someone at the time of the Repeal vote saying doctors needed to repeal in order to properly look after their patients. This woman was a patient and it doesn't sound like she thinks she was properly looked after. Far from it, she lost a healthy baby due to their 'good faith opinion'. And she is likely to sue the very doctors who presumably thought they were acting in 'good faith'. In practice going forward I guess every test will be insisted on by doctors or get parents to sign a waiver or something.
I think good faith needs to be changed to beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise we risk a repeat. Sounds like the medical establishment are trying to cover themselves from litigation with "good faith". If a surgeon made a major mistake during an operation for example, leading to the death of their patient, they could say, "not my fault, I operated in good faith".
Like you rightly said, good faith is a bit wishy-washy.0 -
"The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 allows for a termination:
under section 11, where two medical practitioners are of the opinion formed in good faith that 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;
What does an opinion formed in good faith actually mean ? Sounds a bit wishy-washy, casual or open to interpretation to me. Surely there should be diagnostic solid rules as regards what informs that good faith opinion or tighter wording in the legislation for the protection of both the doctors and the parents and not forgetting the baby because as everyone says, ffa babies are wanted babies. I remember hearing Peter Boylan or someone at the time of the Repeal vote saying doctors needed to repeal in order to properly look after their patients. This woman was a patient and it doesn't sound like she thinks she was properly looked after. Far from it, she lost a healthy baby due to their 'good faith opinion'. And she is likely to sue the very doctors who presumably thought they were acting in 'good faith'. In practice going forward I guess every test will be insisted on by doctors or get parents to sign a waiver or something.
"In good faith" is at least as clear as "beyond reasonable doubt". They had a result that had less than 0.2% of being wrong, so 99.8% of being right, in theory. Remember that the doctor in Galway believed that she couldn't act until the odds of Savita dying were greater than 50% - and that we were told that there is no way to identify that dividing line at all, so that an "in good faith" might actually have saved Savita's life.
This is not a comment on this particular terrible incident, just pointing out that it's not necessarily a matter of simply finding a more precise phrase or a number that will prevent any future error. The old saying is that medicine is an art, not a science, and there is a lot to that, even today.
Demanding evidence that the advice was given "in good faith" is probably better than artificially setting a number.
Anyway, 99.8% would probably sound fine to most people, but when it turns out that waiting another two weeks gives an actual result, not a theoretical one, then we're entitled to wonder whether it really was in good faith, if the couple were not given all the information.0 -
I can’t be the only one who is absolutely mystified that doctors could have advised the termination course of action without ALL the results to hand? In this litigious society? Obviously they may have thought they were correct but would they not have waited and advised caution until the actual conclusive 100% sure results were in.
It just doesn’t make any sense.0 -
Sittingpretty wrote: »I can’t be the only one who is absolutely mystified that doctors could have advised the termination course of action without ALL the results to hand? In this litigious society? Obviously they may have thought they were correct but would they not have waited and advised caution until the actual conclusive 100% sure results were in.
It just doesn’t make any sense.
Yes it does seem strange, but I would be very careful not to accuse the couple of having got this wrong without solid evidence. Because it doesn't make any more sense that a couple getting such a terrible diagnosis would have acted earlier than they were advised to, despite knowing that all the results were not yet in.
Something clearly went badly wrong, but AFAICT we don't yet know exactly why, nor who was at fault.0 -
"In good faith" is at least as clear as "beyond reasonable doubt". They had a result that had less than 0.2% of being wrong, so 99.8% of being right, in theory. Remember that the doctor in Galway believed that she couldn't act until the odds of Savita dying were greater than 50% - and that we were told that there is no way to identify that dividing line at all, so that an "in good faith" might actually have saved Savita's life.
This is not a comment on this particular terrible incident, just pointing out that it's not necessarily a matter of simply finding a more precise phrase or a number that will prevent any future error. The old saying is that medicine is an art, not a science, and there is a lot to that, even today.
Demanding evidence that the advice was given "in good faith" is probably better than artificially setting a number.
Anyway, 99.8% would probably sound fine to most people, but when it turns out that waiting another two weeks gives an actual result, not a theoretical one, then we're entitled to wonder whether it really was in good faith, if the couple were not given all the information.
It doesn't at all, not even close. To act in good faith is open to interpretation and subjectivity and leaves room for doubt and a margin of error which is what happened here.
Beyond reasonable doubt means you have exhausted all possible avenues and there's nothing left to try. This is not what happened here. They chose not to wait for the results of the final test which was the most accurate and conclusive. So there was always a doubt involved.
I hope we learn from this tragedy, that is wait until ALL the test results are back before deciding.0 -
Yes it does seem strange, but I would be very careful not to accuse the couple of having got this wrong without solid evidence. Because it doesn't make any more sense that a couple getting such a terrible diagnosis would have acted earlier than they were advised to, despite knowing that all the results were not yet in.
Something clearly went badly wrong, but AFAICT we don't yet know exactly why, nor who was at fault.
Agree completely, it’s all very strange and I suppose it’s best not to speculate without knowing the actual facts and/or the timeline.
Ultimately though a very sad outcome however it was arrived at.0 -
Advertisement
-
Why didn't you vote no to avoid this sad outcome.Sittingpretty wrote: »Ultimately though a very sad outcome however it was arrived at.0 -
-
-
ToBeFrank123 wrote: »I'm not rehashing the abortion debate FFS. I said clearly there's no point rehashing the abortion debate as a 100 previous posters were doing.
Your post is completely contradictory. You say there is no issue in law signing off with 99.9% accuracy and yet you question how the information was explained to the couple and the exclusion of vital information about margin of error.
The takeaway is the particular test is not reliable by itself and the medical professionals should have waited for the 3rd test.
Cool your jets there! I’m not referring to you exclusively regarding the rehashing of the abortion debate.
My post is not contradictory at all. Almost every clinical intervention is made without 100% certainty (as to diagnosis, outcome of treatment etc), this is fine do long as the patient understands the risks etc. The test in this case is over 99.9% reliable, and proceeding on the basis of that degree of certainty is absolutely not a problem, even if another more accurate test is available. The issue is whether the couple had this explained to them properly.
Waiting for amniocentesis, and the definitive results could take a significant amount of extra time, also maybe time for the woman to make a decision perhaps bringing a pregnancy up to 19/20 weeks or so. It’s possible then that where a surgical abortion would have been an option, at the later stage an induction of labour might be needed to terminate the pregnancy. I can absolutely understand why a woman might prefer to proceed on a greater than 99.9% certainty rather than have to go through labour to deliver a dead baby.
The notion of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in a medical scenario is ridiculous and unworkable. Doctors would be paralysed if that degree of certainty was required in day to day practice. The Cross judgment would only be in the half place compared to it.0 -
the cervical cancer payouts are going to bite us in the ass0
-
Waiting for amniocentesis, and the definitive results could take a significant amount of extra time, also maybe time for the woman to make a decision perhaps bringing a pregnancy up to 19/20 weeks or so. It’s possible then that where a surgical abortion would have been an option, at the later stage an induction of labour might be needed to terminate the pregnancy. I can absolutely understand why a woman might prefer to proceed on a greater than 99.9% certainty rather than have to go through labour to deliver a dead baby.
The notion of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in a medical scenario is ridiculous and unworkable. Doctors would be paralysed if that degree of certainty was required in day to day practice. The Cross judgment would only be in the half place compared to it.
It took a number of weeks for definitive results, not months. They could have waited and by they I mean the medical professionals.
Lets call a spade a spade. The medical professionals messed up. There's no two ways about it, no other way to dress it up or put a spin on it.
As many have said, lets hope we learn from this. No more nonsense about aborting based on early test results. Wait for the amniocentesis. Only militant pro-abortionists would not wait for an amniocentesis.
If this error happened once, it can happen again. A healthy human being was terminated, pretty disgraceful. No amount of moving the goalposts or arguing over when life begins changes that. As a society we agreed human life begins in the womb at 12 weeks and aborting after that is illegal except in limited circumstances where there is a threat to the life of the mother or child. Except in this case, the unborn child was neither.
I can see the parents suing and being rightly entitled to compensation. They depended on medical advice and were badly let down.0 -
ToBeFrank123 wrote: »No more nonsense about aborting based on early test results. Wait for the amniocentesis.
CVS tests can be carried out as early as ten weeks.
Making abortion for FFA dependant on a positive result from amniocentesis (which can only be done at 16 weeks) will only push women into testing as early as possible, so if there is a 98.5% positive, they can avail of the 12 week limit.
.0 -
ToBeFrank123 wrote: »It took a number of weeks for definitive results, not months.
As many have said, lets hope we learn from this. No more nonsense about aborting based on early test results. Wait for the amniocentesis. Only militant pro-abortionists would not wait for an amniocentesis.
They didn’t have an amniocentesis- I’m referring to the wait time to have amino and to get the results. An abortion at that stage would likely be by induced labour.
Amniocentesis also has a 1% miscarriage rate, as well as potential other complications, so opting for an amino over CVS, the risk of miscarriage is greater than the risk of a false positive. Its a decision for each woman/couple to make.As a society we agreed human life begins in the womb at 12 weeks
I don’t remember society agreeing on this.0 -
CVS tests can be carried out as early as ten weeks.
Making abortion for FFA dependant on a positive result from amniocentesis (which can only be done at 16 weeks) will only push women into testing as early as possible, so if there is a 98.5% positive, they can avail of the 12 week limit.
.
If they do that, the have no sympathy because they are risking aborting a perfectly healthy baby as we have seen in the recent Holles Street case.
If nothing else its idiotic to abort without as many results as possible. In Ireland you can abort an unborn with FFA at any stage. So why the rush? Many couples spend thousands if not tens of thousands trying to conceive if they go down the IVF route. Waiting a couple more weeks for definitive results is worthwhile. I'm not sure of the full details in this case regards how long they were trying, all I heard is it was a long awaited pregnancy. Now unfortunately they are back to square one. They would not however have the medical expertise to decide if it was worth waiting for amniocentesis. For that they depended on medical advice and opinion.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don’t remember society agreeing on this.
It was called a referendum, you may have missed it. Aborting a healthy unborn after 12 weeks except in limited circumstances is illegal. In other words you cannot just terminate a healthy unborn after 12 weeks. That's what the majority voted for and agreed.
People have their own subjective opinions on when life begins and when healthy unborn should be protected, but as a society we agreed in the referendum they should be protected from 12 weeks onwards.They didn’t have an amniocentesis- I’m referring to the wait time to have amino and to get the results. An abortion at that stage would likely be by induced labour.
Amniocentesis also has a 1% miscarriage rate, as well as potential other complications, so opting for an amino over CVS, the risk of miscarriage is greater than the risk of a false positive. Its a decision for each woman/couple to make
Aborting rather than risk a 1% miscarriage rate due to Amniocentesis? That's great logic.0
Advertisement