Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

pauldla wrote: »

Is that what she said? That's a tricky bit of wording there, perhaps lazygal will clarify for us. (wanders off to check meaning of 'abrogation')

I'm fairly sure it was, I did copy/paste it from the post I linked... and it seemed reasonably clear.

pauldla wrote: »

Is that what she said? That's a tricky bit of wording there, perhaps lazygal will clarify for us.

(wanders off to check meaning of 'abrogation')

Perhaps this will help clear up the question of pregnant women and removal of requirement for consent in Ireland :

Philomena Canning and maternity abuse in Ireland

aloyisious

Umm, if a woman sought life-saving treatment for cancer or a blood disorder, as advised by her doctor, in a hospital, would there be a specific difference to the likelihood of the hospital providing such urgent treatment if the woman was pregnant due to hospital policy when it came to it's understanding of the 8th amendment, as distinct to the hospital policy of providing such urgent medical treatment if she was not pregnant?

Would it be an abrogation of a pregnant woman's rights (such as exists) to the required medical treatment, even after she gave her signed informed consent for the treatment she required, if some member of the hospital staff caused her a denial of the treatment due to a personal understanding - (sorry, we can't help you until you give birth or your pregnancy is ended) - of the 8th?

Nick Park

aloyisious wrote: »

Umm, if a woman sought life-saving treatment for cancer or a blood disorder, as advised by her doctor, in a hospital, would there be a specific difference to the likelihood of the hospital providing such urgent treatment if the woman was pregnant due to hospital policy when it came to it's understanding of the 8th amendment, as distinct to the hospital policy of providing such urgent medical treatment if she was not pregnant?

I don't believe there would be a specific difference in the likelihood of a hospital applying life-saving treatment. Hospitals should be well aware of their responsibility to the patient by law.

Would it be an abrogation of a pregnant woman's rights (such as exists) to the required medical treatment, even after she gave her signed informed consent for the treatment she required, if some member of the hospital staff caused her a denial of the treatment due to a personal understanding - (sorry, we can't help you until you give birth or your pregnancy is ended) - of the 8th?

It would certainly be a gross denial of the patient's rights if she was denied life saving treatment due to a member of staff's misunderstanding of the 8th Amendment (or indeed their misunderstanding of any other Irish law).

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't believe there would be a specific difference in the likelihood of a hospital applying life-saving treatment. Hospitals should be well aware of their responsibility to the patient by law.

It would certainly be a gross denial of the patient's rights if she was denied life saving treatment due to a member of staff's misunderstanding of the 8th Amendment (or indeed their misunderstanding of any other Irish law).

I think "life saving" is not sufficient though, when we're talking about the patient's rights : the question here is whether she is entitled to the same rights to healthcare as she would of she weren't pregnant, and importantly, if she retains the same rights to give or withhold consent for treatment, even when her life is not at stake.

Since we know that pregnant women do lose some rights to healthcare and to withhold consent (my link above for example), directly because of the rights of the fetus under the 8th amendment, the case is proven.

robindch

stinkle wrote: »

One of the Brexit concerns was the dismissal of experts in their field as trying to brainwash the general public. It's worrying to see it occur here too.

That was Michael Gove who memorably suggested not only that "the British people are tired of experts" but who also compared economists who warned that brexit would lead to economic troubles - he compared them, to, well, Nazis orchestrating a smear campaign.

Here's a link to the interview.

volchitsa wrote: »

Perhaps this will help clear up the question of pregnant women and removal of requirement for consent in Ireland :
Philomena Canning and maternity abuse in Ireland

Can you suggest how? I note you're not quite talking about the maternity system here removing the right to informed consent from pregnant women because of the eighth amendment, but rather that you think there's a question of pregnant women and removal of requirement for consent in Ireland. Whilst your link certainly suggests some questions, it doesn't in any way show that the maternity system here removes the right to informed consent from pregnant women because of the eighth amendment. In fact, it suggests the author wants a right to informed consent during pregnancy and labour conferred, and that the High Court has already determined that her own view, relying upon the right of every Irish citizen to have input into decisions that affect their private life, as defined in the Constitution, isn't correct.
Lazygal brought up the informed consent canard before, but elected not to pursue the subject, and Rainbow Kirby introduced the notion a while back, but I don't think good medical practice has changed much since then, has it?

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

Perhaps this will help clear up the question of pregnant women and removal of requirement for consent in Ireland :

Philomena Canning and maternity abuse in Ireland

I'm seeing links there to the Dr Neary case in Drogheda. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with abortion or the 8th Amendment? Dr Neary's removal of women's wombs had nothing to do with abortion, and he was doing it 9 years before the 8th Amendment was passed.

Your link seems to be more about the "doctor knows best" culture that many people complain about in medicine. It certainly is not confined to women, or to issues related to pregnancy.

Nick Park

volchitsa wrote: »

I think "life saving" is not sufficient though, when we're talking about the patient's rights :

It wasn't my choice of phrase. I was responding to another poster's question that was specifically about life saving treatment.

Since we know that pregnant women do lose some rights to healthcare and to withhold consent (my link above for example), directly because of the rights of the fetus under the 8th amendment, the case is proven.

I don't think it's quite as simple as that. Your link referred not so much to abortion and more to treatment being given to women who were giving birth. There is a real ethical problem when we demand rights that negatively impact on another human being.

For example, most of us would be supportive of parental rights. But we don't see those rights as absolute. If a Jehovah's Witness wants to stop their child from receiving a life saving blood transfusion then most of us would support the right of the State to overrule the parent. The human right to life of the child supersedes the parental right to withhold consent to a blood transfusion.

I would see similar principles as operating if an expectant mother demands medical treatment which, in the opinion of medical professionals, is likely to cause harm to the child and is not essential for the well-being of the mother.

Imagine a scenario, for example, where a mother, deluded by some homeopathic crackpot, wants to give birth in a way where there is a significant risk that the child will suffer serious brain damage and be confined to a wheelchair for the rest of their life. I think many 'pro-choice' folks would agree that doctors have a duty to protect the child from that risk, even if it limits the mother's right to grant or withhold consent.

I have no medical expertise, and I am not a doctor or midwife, so I don't pretend to be capable of determining whether the doctors in your link behaved correctly or not in terms of best medical practice. But from an ethical standpoint, I don't think there is an absolute and unqualified right for a mother to demand whatever treatment she wishes when there is a risk of her causing permanent harm to her child. And to blame that on the 8th Amendment seems to be a real stretch.

PopePalpatine

aloyisious wrote: »

There's a gent naming himself Patrick as the director of the advice clinic next to the Reproductive Choices centre on the Joe Duffy show having a bit of a rant at Joe. He just called Joe a liar, shortly after saying a 15 year-old girl was murdered (his words) at a Marie Stopes clinic in London. He was invited on to speak about a protest outside his advice centre last night, what he called Rent-A-Mob. Ah, Simon Harris, according to Patrick, is a liar.

Peter Boylan has just joined the live debate.

Edit.... It seem's Joe's researchers were into the history books as Joe asked Patrick if he was a gent, using another name, who ran for public office on behalf of a Christian party. Patrick didn't answer the question. He's very good at trying to shout down anyone else asking him questions.

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm seeing links there to the Dr Neary case in Drogheda. I'm not quite sure what that has to do with abortion or the 8th Amendment? Dr Neary's removal of women's wombs had nothing to do with abortion, and he was doing it 9 years before the 8th Amendment was passed.

Your link seems to be more about the "doctor knows best" culture that many people complain about in medicine. It certainly is not confined to women, or to issues related to pregnancy.

It's not the 8th alone, I believe, there is actually another law involved whose name I forget at the moment, but it certainly is the 8th as well.

It's become apparent since the death of Savitta Halappanavar that a lot of people believe that the 8th only affects women wanting to terminate their pregnancy, but that's not the case. The 8th doesn't mention abortion, and doesn't apply only to termination of pregnancy. The PP case (where the woman had died but her life support could not be turned off without referral to the HC) is an example of that.

So while you're of course correct that the traditional "Doctor knows best" attitude is still on display in Ireland, that wasn't my point : patriarchal attitudes do not a legal defence make. The legal defence was that medical staff had to weigh up the fetus' interests against those of the woman, so her consent was not necessary - even though in the case of Ciara Hamilton the midwife's action almost led to the baby and the mother's death. It's a defence which has the force of the constitution behind it. Ciara Hamilton lost and was ordered to pay costs - for a mistake made by the midwife which nearly killed her.

volchitsa wrote: »

It's not the 8th alone, I believe, there is actually another law involved whose name I forget at the moment, but it certainly is the 8th as well.

How is it the 8th at all if as Nick says the Dr Neary case in Drogheda about the removal of women's wombs was 9 years before the 8th Amendment was passed? I suppose we can discuss the other law when you remember what it is...

volchitsa wrote: »

It's become apparent since the death of Savitta Halappanavar that a lot of people believe that the 8th only affects women wanting to terminate their pregnancy, but that's not the case.

Well, to be fair, lots of people believe that the 8th was at fault in her death, when that's not the case either. There's probably a lot less value in discussing what people believe than in discussing the actual facts.

volchitsa wrote: »

The 8th doesn't mention abortion, and doesn't apply only to termination of pregnancy. The PP case (where the woman had died but her life support could not be turned off without referral to the HC) is an example of that.

Thank you! For so long pro life posters have been pointing out that the 8th is not about preventing abortion, it's about preserving life. It's good to see some headway

volchitsa wrote: »

So while you're of course correct that the traditional "Doctor knows best" attitude is still on display in Ireland, that wasn't my point : patriarchal attitudes do not a legal defence make.

I think throwing the whole 'patriarchal' thing in is another canard to be honest, we have had female doctors for quite some time you know, and people do tend to defer to their opinion just as they do to male Doctors. Now, that may be because Doctors (regardless of their sex) are (literally) better qualified to make medical decisions than lay people (just as the author in your link incorrectly asserted the High Court decision pointed out that medical professionals like midwives are better people to make medical decisions for pregnant women than pregnant women are), or it may because the Irish are by nature deferential, but I have to say I'd lean towards the former.

volchitsa wrote: »

The legal defence was that medical staff had to weigh up the fetus' interests against those of the woman, so her consent was not necessary - even though in the case of Ciara Hamilton the midwife's action almost led to the baby and the mother's death. It's a defence which has the force of the constitution behind it. Ciara Hamilton lost and was ordered to pay costs - for a mistake made by the midwife which nearly killed her.

You're doing a great job of proving my point that pro choice proponents are quite happy to ignore facts when it suits their agenda, thank you!

So let's look at the facts, shall we?
The plaintiff’s case was negligence based on the evidence of her experts; of the 25 points offered by her experts, on expert stated that "The midwife did not obtain the plaintiff’s permission, neither did she discuss the procedure with her beforehand." All three of her experts said the midwife should have discussed it with an obstetrician, so it's pretty obvious the case wasn't founded on the issue of consent from the outset. Still...
The defendents experts pointed out that 40% to 50% of patients have an ARM performed by a midwife. Oddly, not a single one in their evidence said "that medical staff had to weigh up the fetus' interests against those of the woman, so her consent was not necessary ".
And Counsel for the defense never said it either, did they? Even the Judge's statement on what was at issue in the case doesn't mention it. He said:
"The issues that have to be considered in relation to liability are whether it was negligent to do the ARM because:
(a) there was no justification for it?
(b) the midwife should not have made the decision?
(c) it was done in the ward and not in the operating theatre?
(d) the baby was at a station -2 where his head was mobile and an ARM was contra-indicated because of the risk of cord prolapse?"
Not a word about weighing the fetus' interests against those of the woman, never mind whether her consent was necessary. But to be clear, the recitation of events in the case was;
12. On vaginal examination she found the cervix was effaced, the forewaters were bulging and the head was at station -2, low enough in the pelvis and fixed. The plaintiff had had a vaginal sweep the previous day and the midwife had no concern about the progress of labour. She described what she meant by the head being fixed and said that it did not bounce. She carried out the artificial rupture of membranes to review the colour of the liquor to see if there was meconium present which would indicate foetal distress. The risk was that there might be substantial compromise of the fetus. She decided on an ARM and did not think there was a risk of cord prolapse. She would not have carried out the procedure if the head was mobile and in those circumstances, if she had been concerned about the situation, she would have called the doctor. She brought an amnihook with her and got consent from the plaintiff to the procedure. The patient’s co-operation was needed in terms of re-positioning on the bed, the procedure might take some time and the implement was quite long, so it is not something that a person would or could do without the knowledge of the patient.
And the judgement of the Court states;
"89. My view accordingly is that it was reasonable for Midwife Kelliher to seek reassurance; the appropriate step was ARM; she was the person entitled and authorised and qualified to make the decision; she did an examination and satisfied herself that the baby’s head was not mobile; the plaintiff consented to the procedure; when the midwife did the ARM she immediately appreciated that the cord had prolapsed and responded appropriately by raising the alarm, while protecting the baby from injury resulting from compression of the cord. The emergency procedure prescribed for such a crisis went into operation and the plaintiff was brought to the theatre where her baby was delivered in good condition."

So whether or not anybody thought her consent was necessary, the Judge certainly believed she gave it.

It seems to me you're keeping Breda company in ability to ignore facts. Should we go so far as to say it's very common with anti lifers?

volchitsa wrote: »

The 8th doesn't mention abortion, and doesn't apply only to termination of pregnancy. The PP case (where the woman had died but her life support could not be turned off without referral to the HC) is an example of that.

Its always worth pointing out that for that specific case the family and husband wanted the life support machine to be switched off, but the 8th meant that legally it could not be and so her body was used as biological life support system for the fetus even though she was actually dead.

Sickening stuff,

Cabaal wrote: »

Its always worth pointing out that for that specific case the family and husband wanted the life support machine to be switched off, but the 8th meant that legally it could not be and so her body was used as biological life support system for the fetus even though she was actually dead.
Sickening stuff,

Also worth pointing out then, that despite the 8th not changing in the slightest, the life support was turned off legally. Almost as if, in fact, the 8th didn't mean it could not be. Sickening stuff, that the deaths of two people could be deliberately misrepresented to suit an agenda, perhaps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEcqSJ-Yevg

People discussing the Mount Misery Rock Painting in Waterford on Live Line,

http://www.rte.ie/cspodcasts/media.mp3?c1=2&c2=16951747&ns_site=test&ns_type=clickin&rte_vs_ct=aud&rte_vs_sc=pod&rte_mt_sec=radio&rte_vs_sn=radio1&rte_mt_pub_dt=2016-09-13&rte_mt_prg_name=test-liveline&title=Waterford%20Rock%20Mural&c7=http%3A%2F%2Fpodcast.rasset.ie%2Fpodcasts%2Faudio%2F2016%2F0913%2F20160913_rteradio1-liveline-waterfordr_c21052998_21053002_232_.mp3&r=http%3A%2F%2Fpodcast.rasset.ie%2Fpodcasts%2Faudio%2F2016%2F0913%2F20160913_rteradio1-liveline-waterfordr_c21052998_21053002_232_.mp3

Over the years its said all sorts of things including having hurling stuff, flags, text numbers for local charity's and most recently it was changed to read REPEAL....."Prolife" groups have changed it to REVEAL.

Youth Defense also have coverage of the rock face

https://www.facebook.com/YouthDefence/photos/a.420381137362.215715.70003452362/10154499810977363/?type=3&theater

I'd expect it to be changed back to REPEAL any day now...

Here's a video of the lads painting repeal

Dick phelan

Cabaal wrote: »

People discussing the Mount Misery Rock Painting in Waterford on Live Line,

http://www.rte.ie/cspodcasts/media.mp3?c1=2&c2=16951747&ns_site=test&ns_type=clickin&rte_vs_ct=aud&rte_vs_sc=pod&rte_mt_sec=radio&rte_vs_sn=radio1&rte_mt_pub_dt=2016-09-13&rte_mt_prg_name=test-liveline&title=Waterford%20Rock%20Mural&c7=http%3A%2F%2Fpodcast.rasset.ie%2Fpodcasts%2Faudio%2F2016%2F0913%2F20160913_rteradio1-liveline-waterfordr_c21052998_21053002_232_.mp3&r=http%3A%2F%2Fpodcast.rasset.ie%2Fpodcasts%2Faudio%2F2016%2F0913%2F20160913_rteradio1-liveline-waterfordr_c21052998_21053002_232_.mp3

Over the years its said all sorts of things including having hurling stuff, flags, text numbers for local charity's and most recently it was changed to read REPEAL....."Prolife" groups have changed it to REVEAL.

Youth Defense also have coverage of the rock face

https://www.facebook.com/YouthDefence/photos/a.420381137362.215715.70003452362/10154499810977363/?type=3&theater

I'd expect it to be changed back to REPEAL any day now...

Here's a video of the lads painting repeal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEcqSJ-Yevg

Personally don't think the rock should be used for political statements either way.

Dick phelan wrote: »

Personally don't think the rock should be used for political statements either way.

Graffiti on the rock started off as a political statement, remember throughout the 80s and 90s it mentioned the IRA. Can't be much more political then that.

The Hurling stuff was really only in more recent years,

While some might want to claim the 8th is a political issues I don't believe it is, it is far more of a social and society issue and things like that should never be hidden away

political

adjective
1. of or relating to the government or public affairs of a country.

I would have said social or societal issues are amongst the public affairs of a country.... though I can't say I'd be a fan of defacing natural landmarks to draw attention to them all the same.

MrPudding

robindch wrote: »

That was Michael Gove who memorably suggested not only that "the British people are tired of experts" but who also compared economists who warned that brexit would lead to economic troubles - he compared them, to, well, Nazis orchestrating a smear campaign.

Yes, and then apparently without any sense of irony he tells Justine Greening to "be driven entirely by data and what works".

MrP

MrPudding

Cabaal wrote: »

Its always worth pointing out that for that specific case the family and husband wanted the life support machine to be switched off, but the 8th meant that legally it could not be and so her body was used as an experimental biological life support system for the fetus even though she was actually dead.

Sickening stuff,

FYP.

MrP

robindch

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes, and then apparently without any sense of irony he tells Justine Greening to "be driven entirely by data and what works".

Are there any fundamentalists with a sense of irony?

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

A very powerful new video for the Repeal the 8th been released yesterday - well worth watching:

Hotblack Desiato

Not working. Is it this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0OaAz7N07k

Sorry, is this any better? (I've checked and it works for me)

Edit : it works above now too, and no it wasn't the Gaye Edwards one but I'll look at that too, so thanks for that.

aloyisious

The story related by Gayle of the N/I father was related by him in an interview in one of our national broadsheet dailies. He told of how his daughter was carrying a Fatal Abnormality feotus and they had to travel from N/I to Britain to terminate her pregnancy because it couldn't be done in N/I. On the return journey from Britain to N/I, he in one car with his daughter's feotus in a ice-filled food container, his daughter in another car, he had to travel back to a hospital as she was unwell and then resume the journey when she recovered. He gave the interview in the hope that the N/I govt and parliament would change it's stance on abortion there in that part of the UK.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

He gave the interview in the hope that the N/I govt and parliament would change it's stance on abortion there in that part of the UK.

No chance.

We will have women from NI coming down here to abort before that happens, a "Norn Iron solution to a Norn Iron problem" perhaps?

Rise and Repeal 2016 :

"Prolife" people taking down choice posters

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/09/19/repellant/

aloyisious

Edited after MO'B quoted mine below - On the baby-front - From a Maynooth Prof of theology and priest. We Europeans (apparently) are not producing enough babies, some European countries populations are dying, all due to the use of contraception. We actually need to increase the birth rate to enable the future generations to continue. "We are not producing enough to enable future generations to continue"

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/contraception-an-attack-on-fertility-says-leading-catholic-teacher-755352.html

What the prof wrote can be read and/or thought to refer to the native human European stock. I hope he thought through what he wrote. God forbid we ethnically cleanse ourselves out of existence.

Edit..... one way out of the problem seen by Fr Twomey might be for a few Fathers and Mothers to become exactly that and lead by example, :-,)

Michael OBrien

aloyisious wrote: »

From a Maynooth Prof of theology and priest. We Europeans (apparently) are not producing enough babies, some European countries populations are dying, all due to the use of contraception. We actually need to increase the birth rate to enable the future generations to continue. "We are not producing enough to enable future generations to continue"

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/contraception-an-attack-on-fertility-says-leading-catholic-teacher-755352.html

What the prof wrote can be read and/or thought to refer to the native human European stock. I hope he thought through what he wrote. God forbid we ethnically cleanse ourselves out of existence.

Edit..... one way out of the problem seen by Fr Twomey might be for a few Fathers and Mothers to become exactly that and lead by example, :-,)

Scaremongering from hypocritical priests, who would have thought it. (sarcasm alert).
I agree with your last statement. Its like cardinals in Rome saying that people should not have too much wealth when there are poor around. They tend to not look in the mirror much.