Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Gimme A Pound

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Sad case, of course they'll now be multi millionaires and hopefully use that wealth to bring attention to this case and in doing so save others from the same faith of losing a perfectly healthy child.

Super example of faux sympathy.

Plumbthedepths

Charles Ingles wrote:

We should match on the dail and demand another referendum before it's too late

Craw thumpers r us.

Charles Ingles

Faugheen wrote: »

2/10 must try harder.

We usually agree on most topics faugheen , are you not in agreement with me on this issue?

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

He was not asked for a legal opnion.

Well according to your post, he offered it.

A medical doctor is not qualified to go on the radio and speculate about a medical negligence case, any more than a solicitor is qualified to hold forth on traumatic injuries

The couple have appointed a really eminent solicitor, and I doubt they appreciate the Master of the Rotunda speculating like that on national radio.

I mean, I'm sure the same goes for this thread, except that it's a different platform and we're not in positions of influence.

evil_seed

Ricosruffneck wrote: »

I support abortion.

But i'm curious, in this instance if the 8th hadn't been changed would the baby have been aborted (in Ireland)?

What are the facts? without getting emotive over what has happened here please.

You're in the wrong place asking that question

Ricosruffneck

evil_seed wrote: »

You're in the wrong place asking that question

Having read the responses since.

I agree with you.

Gazzmonkey

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Doesn't change the fact the 8th would have prevented this healthy baby's killing. The truth hurts sometimes.

If you're into dead babies, there's about 800 of them in Tuam as far I know.

Certainly some where dispatched by Nuns and other devote religious folk.

mariaalice

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Well according to your post, he offered it.

A medical doctor is not qualified to go on the radio and speculate about a medical negligence case, any more than a solicitor is qualified to hold forth on traumatic injuries

The couple have appointed a really eminent solicitor, and I doubt they appreciate the Master of the Rotunda speculating like that on national radio.

I mean, I'm sure the same goes for this thread, except that it's a different platform and we're not in positions of influence.

Perhaps I was not explaining it very well he did not say it was unlikely to be medical negligence that was my interpretation of wha he was saying, his main point is that no test perfect and no test can offer certainty and in cases of fetal abnormality that is why they do more that one test and that the test has to be contextualised along with other screening such as ultrasound.

SusieBlue

Jaster Rogue wrote: »

Doesn't that just prove our laws were correct and theirs wrong?
Our former laws would not have resulted in the slaughter of an innocent little baby. Theirs would.

Edit meant to quote post about travelling to uk

No, because they could have travelled to the UK for a termination as the many thousands before them did anyway so the 8th would have prevented nothing.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

his main point is that no test perfect and no test can offer certainty and in cases of fetal abnormality that is why they do more that one test and that the test has to be contextualised along with other screening such as ultrasound.

He said:

“When the CVS test is taken two different samples are sent, one for a rapid result which comes back within 48 hours and the other which can take up to two weeks and it is 100%.

Also interesting that he's seen previous cases of the CVS giving a rapid positive, but they waited for the final result

He said he was aware of one case in the Rotunda where an abnormality was identified in the rapid CVS test, but there was no indication in the ultrasound and when the result came through in two weeks the result was normal.

https://www.echolive.ie/nationalnews/Master-of-Rotunda-hospital-Diagnosis-of-fatal-foetal-abnormality-difficult-to-interpret-952aea83-c322-4930-bedf-1e1f91eb6ec2-ds

mariaalice

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

He said:

“When the CVS test is taken two different samples are sent, one for a rapid result which comes back within 48 hours and the other which can take up to two weeks and it is 100%.

Also interesting that he's seen previous cases of the CVS giving a rapid positive, but they waited for the final result

He said he was aware of one case in the Rotunda where an abnormality was identified in the rapid CVS test, but there was no indication in the ultrasound and when the result came through in two weeks the result was normal.

https://www.echolive.ie/nationalnews/Master-of-Rotunda-hospital-Diagnosis-of-fatal-foetal-abnormality-difficult-to-interpret-952aea83-c322-4930-bedf-1e1f91eb6ec2-ds

We will just have to see what the resulst of this case is, medical negliance make enourmouns money for solicitors and barristers that is wrong there should be some other way for those who are affected by medical neglicane to be looked after with our the involvment of solicitors and barristers.

mariaalice

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

He said:

“When the CVS test is taken two different samples are sent, one for a rapid result which comes back within 48 hours and the other which can take up to two weeks and it is 100%.

Also interesting that he's seen previous cases of the CVS giving a rapid positive, but they waited for the final result

He said he was aware of one case in the Rotunda where an abnormality was identified in the rapid CVS test, but there was no indication in the ultrasound and when the result came through in two weeks the result was normal.

https://www.echolive.ie/nationalnews/Master-of-Rotunda-hospital-Diagnosis-of-fatal-foetal-abnormality-difficult-to-interpret-952aea83-c322-4930-bedf-1e1f91eb6ec2-ds

H1e also said there is a .01% of the tests being incorrect.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

there should be some other way for those who are affected by medical neglicane to be looked after with our the involvment of solicitors and barristers.

You mean, for people who have been seriously harmed through medical negligence to have no legal assistance?

Yeah, that should be wonderful for patients. Dr Michael Neary would have been in his element.

mariaalice

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

You mean, for people who have been seriously harmed through medical negligence to have no legal assistance?

Yeah, that should be wonderful for patients. Dr Michael Neary would have been in his element.

That is not what I said soem alternative that dose not involve soclisitor and barristers making millions from medical negliance case should be found, some other way of assisting people who are the victiums of medical negligence there are other countries doing it differently.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

H1e also said there is a .01% of the tests being incorrect.

Are you referring to the rapid test?

That would be expressed as six false positives in the country per year.

That's definitely a reason for a hospital to offer that information, and an opportunity to wait for the subsequent test, if the Mum wishes to.

antodeco

54&56 wrote: »

Do you really believe the couple can't complain about being given the wrong diagnosis?

Can you elaborate on why?

If you were wrongly diagnosed as having X and opted to have your leg amputated to mitigate or remedy the problem and it turned out the diagnosis was completely wrong would it not cross your mind to perhaps complain? Fair play to you if it wouldn't. It certainly would for me!!

Problem with that though, is that you wouldnt have a leg to stand on...


Anyway, I went for several tests last year about an ongoing pain. Doctors and hospitals said it is nothing, See how you get on. I knew it was gallstones (im not comparing gallstones as the same as abortion by the way). 4 diagnosis were all "you are fine, you dont have gallstones". I went private, paid for a private ultrasound, and there you go, I had gallstones and needed surgery. Doctors etc get things wrong. I know someone who was told there was nothing wrong with them (had a sore throat for months) and ended up dying of esophageal cancer. Look at the all the cervical cancer misdiagnosis. You cant blame a patient (the parents) for trusting the experts advice. As has been mentioned, better training and processes are whats needed, not hanging out individuals to dry (unless it was sheer incompetence)

Amirani

Edgware wrote: »

Very "worring"

Fantastic post that. :rolleyes:

Larbre34

I'm not sure why this is such a puzzle for some.

Before the 8th was repealed the CVS and amniocentesis tests were always routinely available. Parents could, and sometimes did, act on those outcomes and travel abroad for a termination based on the test results.

This particular case is a dreadful situation, the Master of the Rotunda said this morning the error risk is between 1:1,000 and 1:10,000 depending on the test and even the lab and thats a rough hand for the family.

The 8th amendment effectively had little or no bearing on the outcome, merely the geography. It should still be reviewed.

Amirani

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Are you referring to the rapid test?

That would be expressed as six false positives in the country per year.

That's definitely a reason for a hospital to offer that information, and an opportunity to wait for the subsequent test, if the Mum wishes to.

Agreed. We don't know whether that information was offered or not yet.

Anyone who immediately starts crying "medical negligence" and calling for people to be struck off as soon as there's as much as a news headline of a false positive/negative or a misdiagnosis is a ****ing moron.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Even the best medical intentions will result in bad and upsetting results eventually.

Absolutely, but strangely that wasn't the attitude when medical misadventure (the inquest jury's verdict) led to Savita being diagnosed with sepsis too late. Nope, then it was a case of:

'A very rare death has occurred as a result of medical misadventure........... our abortion laws must be changed immediately!'

Don't recall too many prochoicers saying what they're saying today anyway:

'Sure it's sad but these thing are bound to occur occasionally, to be expected tbf, medics make mistakes, they're not infallible you know'

Where was all this rationale not so long ago one has to wonder.

The 8th did not need to be repealed in order to save another Savita from occurring. There were no similar deaths before and (unless there had been diagnostic errors made) there's no rational reason to suggest there would be any after either.

Addressing poor medical care in our hospitals was the main takeaway from Savita's sad death but unfortunately very little attention was paid to that aspect of things. Surprising isn't it, that those who claimed they cared about her so much didn't devote much time to trying to make sure the conditions which led to her death never occurred again. Not just with regards to missed diagnosis by the way, but they even had the woman sleeping in a room with no working radiator, in October!

Anyway, sure we know why, abortion on demand was wanted above all else, which is why prochicers didn't just try and get the referendum framed around changing our abortion laws in the context of our health system and ensure that there was clarity there. No, they cared so much about Savita that they gambled losing the referendum by also having a Yes vote mean that abortion would be available at 12 weeks, for any reason, without there having to be a medical reason at all. Yeah, they really all about looking out for women like Savita alright.

Sad that this little tyke died and I'm sure his parents are devastated.

Reminds me of the following story I posted in the lead up to the referendum about a couple who thankfully had a happier ending:

The doctors told me my son would not live. He is now 18 months old

And the final line of the article is:

We need to amend the Eighth, not repeal it.

Sad that these kind of people were ignored during the referendum, drowned out by sanctimony and lies.

Faugheen

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Absolutely, but strangely that wasn't the attitude when medical misadventure (the inquest jury's verdict) led to Savita being diagnosed with sepsis too late. Nope, then it was a case of:

'A very rare death has occurred as a result of medical misadventure........... our abortion laws must be changed immediately!'

Don't recall too many prochoicers saying what they're saying today anyway:

'Sure it's sad but these thing are bound to occur occasionally, to be expected tbf, medics make mistakes, they're not infallible you know'

Where was all this rationale not so long ago one has to wonder.

The 8th did not need to be repealed in order to save another Savita from occurring. There were no similar deaths before and (unless there had been diagnostic errors made) there's no rational reason to suggest there would be any after either.

Addressing poor medical care in our hospitals was the main takeaway from Savita's sad death but unfortunately very little attention was paid to that aspect of things. Surprising isn't it, that those who claimed they cared about her so much didn't devote much time to trying to make sure the conditions which led to her death never occurred again. Not just with regards to missed diagnosis by the way, but they even had the woman sleeping in a room with no working radiator, in October!

Anyway, sure we know why, abortion on demand was wanted above all else, which is why prochicers didn't just try and get the referendum framed around changing our abortion laws in the context of our health system and ensure that there was clarity there. No, they cared so much about Savita that they gambled losing the referendum by also having a Yes vote mean that abortion would be available at 12 weeks, for any reason, without there having to be a medical reason at all. Yeah, they really all about looking out for women like Savita alright.

Sad that this little tyke died and I'm sure his parents are devastated.

Reminds me of the following story I posted in the lead up to the referendum about a couple who thankfully had a happier ending:



And the final line of the article is:



Sad that these kind of people were ignored during the referendum, drowned out by sanctimony and lies.

Why are you making this about the 8th Amendment?

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Absolutely, but strangely that wasn't the attitude when medical misadventure (the inquest jury's verdict) led to Savita being diagnosed with sepsis too late. Nope, then it was a case of:

'A very rare death has occurred as a result of medical misadventure........... our abortion laws must be changed immediately!'

This is a valid point, as is the point that most people preferred to ignore the actual causes for Savita Halappanaver's death, as laid out in the official report (medical negligence). There's been no serious demand to improve maternity services for women alongside giving them Choice.

But the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to all of that, precisely because the 8th Amendment was not a direct cause of Savita Halappanaver's death

SusieBlue

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

This is a valid point, as is the point that most people preferred to ignore the actual causes for Savita Halappanaver's death, as laid out in the official report (medical negligence).

But the 8th Amendment is irrelevant to all of that, precisely because the 8th Amendment was not a direct cause of Savita Halappanaver's death

Completely incorrect.
If she had been offered an abortion when she first requested one, when it was confirmed her baby would not survive, the negligence could never have occurred and the sepsis would never have developed.

She requested the termination when she was admitted to hospital one week prior to her death.

She was refused and told ‘this is a catholic country’, and made sit there for a week in a great deal of pain and suffering, also grieving the loss of her child.
They made her sit there while her baby slowly died inside of her, that alone was a massive cruelty and completely unnecessary.

The sepsis occurred because her cervix was open for so long.
Her cervix was open for so long because it was taking an extrordinarily long amount of time for her baby to pass.

If they had sped up the process, rather than delaying the inevitable, her cervix wouldn’t have been open, the opportunity for infection to develop wouldn’t have been there, and she wouldn’t have died.

Either way, the baby wasn’t going to make it.
But there was no need for Savita to die too. The 8th absolutely had a hand in Savitas death.

Shop40

I voted no to repeal the 8th. Savita died due to medical incompetence and not because of the 8th, but this has been said before.
I’ve had these tests done. The results are never 100%, as is stressed to the mother when signing up for them. So aborting a healthy baby is the risk you take if you’re going down that route. The parents made the decision.

SusieBlue

Shop40 wrote: »

I voted no to repeal the 8th. Sabina died due to medical incompetence and not because of the 8th, but this has been said before.
I’ve had these tests done. The results are never 100%, as is stressed to the mother when signing up for them. So aborting a healthy baby is the risk you take if you’re going down that route. The parents made the decision.

At least have the respect to get Savitas name right before you make unfounded statements about the cause of her death.

Gimme A Pound

Well I voted to repeal - not at all because I think there should be abortion on demand but because I think the option needs to be there for some women in a bad situation (and I doubt most people would view abortion as a form of contraception or having abortion as a really easy standard straightforward procedure without additional baggage). Also I personally wouldn't want it to be any longer than 12 weeks, generally speaking.

I also agree pro choice folk came out with some right tripe, and I couldn't stand Savita's case being used to push an agenda.

Just like not all anti abortion folk are religious zealots/woman haters, not all who voted to repeal are totally cool with abortion in any circumstance. It's way too complex to be just one or the other, and usually those who take an "all or nothing" approach in relation to this highly nuanced, complicated matter - from either "side" - have much too simplistic, inconsistent outlooks, and show contradictory views elsewhere.

I totally understand someone genuinely not liking the idea of abortion (some I'd doubt how genuine they are) and would prefer it to be the absolute last resort, but it is sometimes only fairer to prioritise the mother's welfare.

DEFTLEFTHAND

It was never verified that she was told that 'this is a Catholic country'.

It was vehemently denied by medical staff at the inquest.

SusieBlue

SusieBlue wrote: »

Completely incorrect.

Did you read Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran's report? Because it identified three causal factors

https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/media/pressrel/newsarchive/2013archive/jun13/savitareport.html

1. Inadequate assessment and monitoring of Ms. Halappanavar that would have enabled the clinical team in UHG to recognise and respond to the signs that her condition was deteriorating. Ms. Halappanavar’s deteriorating condition was due to infection associated with a failure to devise and follow a plan of care for her that was satisfactorily cognisant of the facts that:

2. Failure to offer all management options to Ms. Halappanavar who was experiencing inevitable miscarriage of an early second trimester pregnancy where the risk to her was increasing with time from the time that her membranes had ruptured.

3. UHG’s non-adherence to clinical guidelines relating to the prompt and effective management of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock from when it was first diagnosed.

The Hospital was entitled to offer Savita Halappanavar an abortion. This was quite correctly not emphasised during the Repeal Campaign, because the Amendment did indirectly influence the decisionmaking at the hospital. But this nuance would have been confusing during a referendum, when a narrative has to be clear and concise.

At this stage though, seriously, read the report.

SusieBlue

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

It was never verified that she was told that 'this is a Catholic country'.

It was vehemently denied by medical staff at the inquest.

The midwife herself admitted saying it.

https://www.rte.ie/amp/380613/

hatrickpatrick

This is like the Cervical Check scandal - why the f*ck do we have to outsource all this sh!t to private companies in foreign countries? Do we not pour enough feckin' money into the HSE every year for them to be able to hire Irish scientists and run their own labs?