anyone else fed up hearing about abortion already

Dye know what would be interesting to see is anyone publicly calling for elective abortion rights being required to produce a sworn affidavit by their parents that they still wouldn't have been aborted if the permittance level they are seeking would not have resulted in their own abortion in order to entitle eligibility to vote on such matters.

gctest50 wrote: »

No, a stitch in time save nine n all that - seems to be what the the former master of the National Maternity Hospital said


Did they call you to speak at the inquiry ?

Odd that he didn't recommend abortion on demand be permitted as one of his recommendations
The first of MacLoughlin's recommendations was that the Irish Medical Council should lay out exactly when doctors can intervene to save the life of a mother. The coroner said this would provide clarity for patients and doctors.

The jury also endorsed recommendations that blood samples should always be followed up to guard against errors; that proper sepsis management training and guidelines should be available for hospital staff; and that there should be effective communication between staff on call and those on duty in hospitals. MacLoughlin recommended that a dedicated time should be set aside at the end of each shift for this to happen.

He said each hospital in the state should have a protocol for sepsis management; modified early-warning score charts should be introduced in all hospitals as soon as possible; and there should be effective communication between patients and relatives to ensure clarity over treatment plans.

The final two recommendations were that medical and nursing notes should be kept separately and that no additions should made to notes where the death of a person will be subject to an inquest.

Billy86 wrote: »

Your refusal to answer any questions and desperate need to throw questions back says it all, really. The outcry was because she didn't get the medical procedure.

1. Should abortion be allowed if the mother and child/foetus both face certain death without one?
2. If no, why are you happy to watch the mother die when she doesn't have to for no good reason (given that the baby/foetus is going to die before/at birth anyway)?
3. If you answer is 'because somebody died in an abortion procedure before' do you think any medical procedure should be banned as soon as someone dies from it, such as tooth extraction in dentistry?
4. If no, what is your justification for allowing someone to die for no good reason, given they and the baby/foetus were going to die anyway?

Now are you going to answer any of my questions, or is it best to just put you on ignore? Because to be honest, you're coming across to me as nothing more than a troll at this stage - please do prove me wrong on that count.

I've already answered any questions you asked billy. I see from your new questions your complaint is I didn't answer questions you did not ask :rolleyes: well here you go
1. It already is allowed
2. I'm not happy to watch anyone die
3. There is inherent risk with all medical procedures ( as you pointed out yourself) Savitas case was rare "He said he had seen “four or five” cases of septic abortion since the beginning of his career in 1979. In none had the mother died" Do you change the law for hard cases? (thete is a saying about that)
4. See answer to question 1

jameorahiely wrote: »

why was the doctor prepared to carry out a termination when she learned the full extent of her condition?

Because of our stupid law. Let me spell it out:

She was ill. The foetus was going to die. She (via her husband) requested a termination, which would be routine in any civilized country.

The doctors turned her down because of our stupid law, which says her life must be in danger or the doctor goes to jail. They chose to wait for the foetal heartbeat to stop to avoid legal consequences from our stupid law.

Notice that everyone knew the foetus was dying anyhow - doctors, nurses, mother, father. The only question was whether they would terminate, or let it die and deliver it dead.

Later, when the doctor realized her life was in immediate danger, he was prepared to carry out a termination, which he did, but it was too late and she died.

So, she died because our stupid law prevents doctors from carrying out abortions when asked to, without any question of "the life of the unborn" being involved - the foetus was going to die either way, and did in fact die anyhow.

Now, they also made lots of mistakes in her care, which are in the report. But as Dr. Boylan said, if she had been given an abortion when she asked for one ("on demand", if you like), she would be alive today.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Because of our stupid law. Let me spell it out:

She was ill. The foetus was going to die. She (via her husband) requested a termination, which would be routine in any civilized country.

The doctors turned her down because of our stupid law, which says her life must be in danger or the doctor goes to jail. They chose to wait for the foetal heartbeat to stop to avoid legal consequences from our stupid law.

Notice that everyone knew the foetus was dying anyhow - doctors, nurses, mother, father. The only question was whether they would terminate, or let it die and deliver it dead.

Later, when the doctor realized her life was in immediate danger, he was prepared to carry out a termination, which he did, but it was too late and she died.

So, she died because our stupid law prevents doctors from carrying out abortions when asked to, without any question of "the life of the unborn" being involved - the foetus was going to die either way, and did in fact die anyhow.

Now, they also made lots of mistakes in her care, which are in the report. But as Dr. Boylan said, if she had been given an abortion when she asked for one ("on demand", if you like), she would be alive today.

He was prepared, was he?

Why are you referring to Dr Katherine Astbury as a he? It would appear you only know a few sound bites about the case. Dr Katherine Astbury is a woman.

"via her husband" are we to abort children on the say so of men now? I thought they got no say as it is none of their business?

Did you see that stupid law in england that allowed Aisha Chithira to die?

rainbow kirby wrote: »

That "stupid law in england" is the reason why countless women in the UK, Ireland and elsewhere are alive and well today and hadn't committed suicide or self-harmed due to their pregnancy.

Every medical procedure has risks and you're asked to sign off that you are aware of these risks on the consent form for the procedure. People die (very rarely) during tonsillectomies!

any figures for your first statement?


I agree, every medical proceedure, including Savitas has risks.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they let somebody who was bleeding internally leave their care. Unfortunately the CPS did not think they could make a criminal charge stick. that does not mean they acted correctly.



The courts had no say in the matter. the charges were dropped as you said yourself.

What do you mean the couets had nithung to do with it? Are you aware if the case?

volchitsa wrote: »

That's assuming the procedure carried out is the correct one according to current medical evidence, and that it is carried out correctly.

Anything else is negligence or worse.

What medical procedure was carried out on Savita? And was it the right one, by which I mean the same treatment she'd have had in any good maternity hospital around the world?

They ignored changes to her vitals, did not read her charts or carry out examinations, and did not report discharge that smelt and was indicitive if more serious issues.

They ignored or failed to communicate the symptoms. When the doctor became fully aware she was prepared to carry out a termination.

Any good maternity hospital would not have ignored these symptoms

jameorahiely wrote: »

They ignored changes to her vitals, did not read her charts or carry out examinations, and did not report discharge that smelt and was indicitive if more serious issues.

They ignored or failed to communicate the symptoms. When the doctor became fully aware she was prepared to carry out a termination.

Any good maternity hospital would not have ignored these symptoms

All of which is completely irrelevant to the point at issue here : you said the procedure she had done in GUH also had (unavoidable) risks : I asked what that procedure was and whether it was the same one she could have expected to have had done in a hospital in London or New York?

Now since you've just shown us how so well informed you are about her actual treatment, I'm sure you won't try another dodge such as claiming ignorance as to what the right treatment ought to have been.

Medical negligence is medical negligence. It's got nothing to do with abortion or the debate on the 8th.

Parchment wrote: »

Where do you get this stuff from?

You're a vegetarian who states "animals are not ours to kill" yet you promote killing humans.

WOW

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

well no you are the one who thinks that those involved enjoy it. why is that?