Liability conceded in foetal-abnormality mistaken-diagnosis case.

paw patrol

SouthWesterly wrote: »

I never said it wasn't malpractice but that absolves them. They made a decision, it was the wrong one. They've to live with it.
The medical insurers will pay up and those who diagnosed and advised will move on.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Try to walk in their shoes before you judge them.



And be happy that you will probably, and hopefully, never have to face the decisions they were faced with

you can both be correct and probably are.
Ultimately it was their decision based on the information given
My heart goes out to them as they felt it was the best decision based on the information provided.
They don't need points scoring but sympathy.

Leads to a wider point - that I feel many on boards should note that is very relevant around covid and the debates over what holds true and what does not.
expert opinion isn't infallible.

Smee_Again

political analyst wrote: »

What could cause a pregnant woman to even consider having a test to determine whether the foetus has Edwards syndrome?

I don't believe that Edwards syndrome is something that most pregnant women go around thinking about - except if a problem is detected during an ultrasound examination.

We got one when we were pregnant, not specifically for Edwards syndrome but it would have been picked up in the test.

Our last pregnancy ended in a miscarriage and my fiancé was worried it would happen again and wanted the test to reassure herself.

paw patrol

Vaccinated30 wrote: »

If someone is pregnant unplanned and unwanted then they will not see it as a baby. Its not changing things to suit the narrative, it's literally completely different circumstances.

a weird and untrue statement.
Many unplanned and unwanted pregnancies are seem as much more than a clump of cells. Anecdotally anybody with some life experience would know people who had a very much loved unplanned pregnancy.

lazygal

political analyst wrote: »

What could cause a pregnant woman to even consider having a test to determine whether the foetus has Edwards syndrome?

I don't believe that Edwards syndrome is something that most pregnant women go around thinking about - except if a problem is detected during an ultrasound examination.

I had this test on my third pregnancy. I wanted all the information so I could make an informed choice, including travelling for abortion care if necessary. I had a high risk result and needed amniocentesis to rule out Edwards syndrome. Most women know there are risks of abnormalities and some want testing to know for sure.

jimmycrackcorm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Is getting your appendix accidentally removed a traumatic event?

political analyst wrote: »

It's just not possible for that to happen!

Happens a lot.
https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/why-do-thousands-undergo-unnecessary-appendix-removal-1.4108577

As for your argument that this case wouldn't have happened if the 8th was not repealed you are also incorrect in saying so.

Vaccinated30

paw patrol wrote: »

a weird and untrue statement.
Many unplanned and unwanted pregnancies are seem as much more than a clump of cells. Anecdotally anybody with some life experience would know people who had a very much loved unplanned pregnancy.

Yes of course you are right, but unwanted and unplanned are two different things in my opinion. If someone really dosnt want to be pregnant then its dofferent than someone who finds out they are pregnant unplanned but chooses to keep the baby and of course has a very much wanted and loved child.

Flinty997

Vaccinated30 wrote: »

Yes of course you are right, but unwanted and unplanned are two different things in my opinion. If someone really dosnt want to be pregnant then its dofferent than someone who finds out they are pregnant unplanned but chooses to keep the baby and of course has a very much wanted and loved child.

Unwanted is irrelevant to this thread. It's an entirely different discussion. Tbh unplanned is also irrelevant to the thread.

Flinty997

cruizer101 wrote: »

I don't know, and it is not clearly mentioned in any article I've looked at, but I think is a fairly critical bit of information.

It's normal to be warned about risks in all medical treatments. When it comes to pregnancies even more so. It's highly unlikely (nothing is impossible of course) they weren't told about the risks. Especially with those tests. Which are all about risks and probabilities.

Medicine isn't perfect. It's a tragic case for all involved. Lessons will be learned and hopefully reduce the odds of it happening again.

keano_afc

Just tell this couple that they haven't lost their baby. Kate O'Connell can deliver the news.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifNUlu1fWTQ

nozzferrahhtoo

Many people arguing for repeal of the 8th, myself included, pointed out that a case like this was not only possible but pretty much an eventual certainty. Why?

Simply because in EVERY situation where a medical choice is made off the back of results of medical testing.... the results of the testing can be flawed and so the decision based on it the wrong one. We know this.

I also predicted the people against repeal would sit waiting for such a case so they could score political points. Which suggesting this case of termination is "worse" than the death of actual, living, born babies in Portlaoise is a clear example of. It is not even close to "worse".

But cases such as this are NOT the "gotcha" against repeal or abortion many would like to pretend. Not back when we were arguing it in theory, and not now that we are arguing an actual example of it.

A couple got tests done. They acted on the results. The results were bad. This is deeply sad of course. As it would be in ANY medical choice made on faulty data. We should of course feel empathy and compassion for them on that.

But as long as the couple was correctly informed of the risks of such testing at every juncture then there is nothing to see here. Nor is it "malpractice" as some people have jumped to call it. And I am not sure what compensation or damages they should even be offered or expect.

If however the couple was not correctly informed of such risks, and as such their consent was not informed consent, then by all means should we be compensating them and looking very closely at process and procedure and the medical staff involved.

Flinty997

keano_afc wrote: »

Just tell this couple that they haven't lost their baby. Kate O'Connell can deliver the news.

Your making this about the amendment when it's got nothing to do with it.

jrosen

There is always a possibility of error where testing is concerned. If this couple were told and fully informed of the risks and possibilities around testing I fail to see how they have a case. If they were not fully informed thats a different matter.

Flinty997

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Many people arguing for repeal of the 8th, myself included, pointed out that a case like this was not only possible but pretty much an eventual certainty. Why?
...

These tests and similar have been done long before the amendment. The repeal of the 8th made no difference to this.

nozzferrahhtoo

Flinty997 wrote: »

These tests and similar have been done long before the amendment. The repeal of the 8th made no difference to this.

Exactly.

keano_afc wrote: »

Just tell this couple that they haven't lost their baby. Kate O'Connell can deliver the news.

Well that is a poor quality video with poor quality arguments that is just rehashing the arguments that were torpedoed during the referendum debates, and essentially lost the vote and lost it badly. I think if anyone in Irish Society wants to re-look at the abortion issue they are going to need to get new material. Rather than hijack one couples unfortunate pain to attempt (and fail) to score political points.

Especially as one of the dictionary definitions (of the word pregnant) pasted onto the video here actually torpedoes their own argument. Arguing semantics, which is all that video was doing, won the "no" side few votes I suspect.

I suspect when you suggest telling the couple they did not lose a baby... you are doing so with disdain. However you should not be. Because in fact that is precisely one of the valid approaches sometimes taken when treating the emotional well being of women who have lost a pregnancy. I wrote about this fact quite extensively in the past too, with links to sources on the subject.

Focusing on the narrative distinction between loss of a baby, and loss of a pregnancy is in fact one approach validly used to support women through the loss of a pregnancy.

KaneToad

This is why this is an endless debate.

Some see baby and some see clump of cells. If you're on the "clump of cells" end of things then it makes perfect sense to agree with abortion. If you're on the "baby" end of the spectrum then being against abortion is a totally rational position to take.

Where it gets clouded is the portrayal of those against abortion as being Catholic zealots and those in favour as being ultra feminist liberals who want to use abortion as a form of contraception.

I remember when it was alleged that the X case was fake, it was hypothesised that it was that perfect case to challenge the abortion laws in Ireland - so 'perfect' that it was a creation of fiction. (This wasn't the case).

This current situation in the courts is similar. It is the perfect example of the intricate nuances that are involved. The debate will roll on...

Flinty997

You'd only associate this tragedy with repeal of the 8th if you either don't know much about pregnancies, or you do and want to deliberately create misinformation on a tragedy to build a soap box on.

nozzferrahhtoo

^ Again: Exactly.

This has nothing to do with abortion or repeal. This is a case where an error in a test led a patient to make the "wrong" decision. Simple as that.

The only point of interest here really therefore is whether the couple in question were correctly informed about testing risks at all stages of the process.

If yes: Then this is a non story.

If no: Then that is awful and needs to be rectified and compensated for.

Jeremy Sproket

Jaysci20 wrote: »

Does anyone remember Kate O'Connell's outburst in the Dail -

"We won. We’ll get our way . . . Ye can talk for as long as ye like. . . Ye lost. It must be hurting". Is she hurting now about what has happened in this case?

I never understood this pro-abort logic.

Didn't the pro-aborts "lose" in several previous referendums in the 80's and 90's?

By their logic they should have piped down and accepted democracy.

I wonder if there was another referendum to reinstate the 8th would they accept democracy if they majority wanted it reinstated?

Flinty997

KaneToad wrote: »

This is why this is an endless debate. ...

This story isn't an endless debate. The repeal of the 8th might be, because that's subjective. But this case isn't anything to do with that.

eviltwin

Sadly the only reason this has gained traction is because some people want to use it to push their agenda. Its a shame it comes down to that but not surprising. Empathy goes out the window when there is a point to be scored.

Jeremy Sproket

It's funny (in a sad way, not in a haw haw way) that babies are routinely murdered in the womb in their thousands by their so called "mothers" just coz, ie, they might be disabled, unwanted or just slightly imperfect.

Didn't Adolf Hitler and his Nazi henchmen in the Third Reich do similar much to the condemnation of the world?

Necro

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

It's funny (in a sad way, not in a haw haw way) that babies are routinely murdered in the womb in their thousands by their so called "mothers" just coz, ie, they might be disabled, unwanted or just slightly imperfect.

Didn't Adolf Hitler and his Nazi henchmen in the Third Reich do similar much to the condemnation of the world?

Threadbanned

nozzferrahhtoo

Jeremy Sproket wrote: »

Didn't the pro-aborts "lose" in several previous referendums in the 80's and 90's?

By their logic they should have piped down and accepted democracy.

I have never in my life met anyone who is "pro abortion". So I am not sure to which people you refer to here. In fact the one thing I think linked most people who were pro-choice with those who were anti-choice was the fact we pretty much all want to see little (ideally no) abortions ever happen. That is a unifying ideal we can ALL work towards, and hopefully we all do.

However on a more general note I do not think "accept democracy" should ever be taken to mean "you lost, go away and shut up".

Democracy for me means that when you lose, you go back and get new and better arguments so that NEXT time you can win. Then if you "lose in the 80's" you can come back and win later on. And that is what the Pro-Choice people did.

The only people who should "Pipe down" (your phrase, not mine) are the ones who want to just keep rehashing the same failed points that lost it for them before. They need new material. Arguing semantics did not work for them then. Why try it again now? As you do in your next post above.... misusing words like "baby" and "murder" got them nowhere. If anything, it did the opposite.

Flinty997

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

^ Again: Exactly.

This has nothing to do with abortion or repeal. This is a case where an error in a test led a patient to make the "wrong" decision. Simple as that.

The only point of interest here really therefore is whether the couple in question were correctly informed about testing risks at all stages of the process.

If yes: Then this is a non story.

If no: Then that is awful and needs to be rectified and compensated for.

I'm not sure this is about informing people of risks. I assume that's a given. I would think a error in process is more likely.

cruizer101

Flinty997 wrote: »

It's normal to be warned about risks in all medical treatments. When it comes to pregnancies even more so. It's highly unlikely (nothing is impossible of course) they weren't told about the risks. Especially with those tests. Which are all about risks and probabilities.

Medicine isn't perfect. It's a tragic case for all involved. Lessons will be learned and hopefully reduce the odds of it happening again.

The fact that Holles Street have conceded full liability does to me imply there was fault in some way by them. Had the parents been fully informed of the probabilities and made their decision based on that its hard to see how there would be fault.

Part of the problem is that it was likely just a conversation that took place 2 years ago and so there may not be an accurate record of what was said. Even the consultants and patients recollection is probably distorted at this stage.

nozzferrahhtoo

Flinty997 wrote: »

I'm not sure this is about informing people of risks. I assume that's a given. I would think a error in process is more likely.

Well either of us would only be speculating there. We have no details. That is what hearing and trials and so on are for. We can imagine what is "Likely" but we would only be imagining. Certainly I would not "assume" anything a given however. Assuming anything is a given is what lends possibility to failures.

All I can say is that IF the couple in question was correctly informed at every stage, and the medical advice offered was congruent with the test results as they stood at the time.... then this is a sad and unfortunate nonstory and the couple in question deserves empathy and privacy.

If anything however was not above board or the process failed somewhere, then the least this couple deserves is that their case be used to fuel and motivate further improvements of our processes. No process will ever be perfect. But that does not mean perfection is not an ideal towards which we can aspire.

Flinty997

cruizer101 wrote: »

The fact that Holles Street have conceded full liability does to me imply there was fault in some way by them. Had the parents been fully informed of the probabilities and made their decision based on that its hard to see how there would be fault.

Part of the problem is that it was likely just a conversation that took place 2 years ago and so there may not be an accurate record of what was said. Even the consultants and patients recollection is probably distorted at this stage.

Not to trivialize anything. But I remember watching a TV show about interns and they were warned that at some point it was a given that some of them will inadvertently kill someone in trying to save or treat them. That's the nature of medicine. Hospitals have insurance for these kind of reasons. Because mistakes and accidents happen. We learn from them and that's how things get better. But they have have decided that's these claims are the appropriate way of dealing with these situations.

senordingdong

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

^ Again: Exactly.

This has nothing to do with abortion or repeal. This is a case where an error in a test led a patient to make the "wrong" decision. Simple as that.

The only point of interest here really therefore is whether the couple in question were correctly informed about testing risks at all stages of the process.

If yes: Then this is a non story.

If no: Then that is awful and needs to be rectified and compensated for.

I think there could be a few more points of interest.

When this story broke it was suggested that the consultant who referred the couple for the test, has a stake in the private laboratory that conducted the test.

And then there's the point of interest of compensation. Will this be likened to the removal of an organ, or worse, a tumour? With the eight amendment repealed, is it exclusively for the mother to determine if it was a baby or a clump of cells?

Flinty997

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well either of us would only be speculating there. We have no details. That is what hearing and trials and so on are for. We can imagine what is "Likely" but we would only be imagining. Certainly I would not "assume" anything a given however. Assuming anything is a given is what lends possibility to failures.

All I can say is that IF the couple in question was correctly informed at every stage, and the medical advice offered was congruent with the test results as they stood at the time.... then this is a sad and unfortunate nonstory and the couple in question deserves empathy and privacy.

If anything however was not above board or the process failed somewhere, then the least this couple deserves is that their case be used to fuel and motivate further improvements of our processes. No process will ever be perfect. But that does not mean perfection is not an ideal towards which we can aspire.

My limited experience of a good few pregnancies, not all successful, is that you are overloaded with information about risks. Especially these and similar tests. That's what I am basing my assumption in. Others might have different experience, or just never took it in. It opened my eyes at the time. Once you've experienced one unsuccessful pregnancy I think it changes your perspective on things.

I'm a lot more cautious and non judgmental as a result. Not just of the people, but of medicine in general.

Flinty997

senordingdong wrote: »

...
And then there's the point of interest of compensation. Will this be likened to the removal of an organ, or worse, a tumour? With the eight amendment repealed, is it exclusively for the mother to determine if it was a baby or a clump of cells?

I think none of that is relevant. It probably more about the trauma of the circumstances and outcome, and could it been mitigated in any way. Judgments are also about encouraging change.