Strike For Repeal?

jameorahiely wrote: »

I was reading a good article the other day about conveyer belt abortions in the uk. The doctor signs all the forms without meeting the patient. The receptionist will change your reason for getting one to a reason acceptable under law. And off you go. 26 seconds was the average "consultation" The foetus remains are thrown in open bins and mentally challemged people are given abortions without their consent. Women who do decide to give birth to a disabled child are looked down on and asked why didn't they just kill their child.

Fascinating stuff

I don't agree with everything in the UK system, and there's a lot I disagree with, but that sounds a little exaggerated to me. However, I'm certainly open to evaluating it myself so I'd appreciate a link to the article if you have one handy?

pilly

jameorahiely wrote:

I was reading a good article the other day about conveyer belt abortions in the uk. The doctor signs all the forms without meeting the patient. The receptionist will change your reason for getting one to a reason acceptable under law. And off you go. 26 seconds was the average "consultation" The foetus remains are thrown in open bins and mentally challemged people are given abortions without their consent. Women who do decide to give birth to a disabled child are looked down on and asked why didn't they just kill their child.

I'd love to see a link to this article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4284290/Marie-Stopes-abortions-signed-just-phonecall.html

mahamageehad wrote: »

I think the 8th is too vague and any amendment will include a grey area. I'm strongly against giving grey areas constitutional protection. The vagueness of the 8th has resulted in numerous high profile cases already.

Odd. I would have said the very opposite; the 8th is so specific that it leaves the barest amount of room for maneuver. It can't be argued that it leaves room to allow the destruction of a life in any circumstance (FFA etc) except where the destruction of another life is likely. It's the specificity of the 8th that's most likely to give people reason to consider repeal, in order to make allowance for the hard cases they feel should be allowed for.

One eyed Jack

jameorahiely wrote: »

I was reading a good article the other day about conveyer belt abortions in the uk. The doctor signs all the forms without meeting the patient. The receptionist will change your reason for getting one to a reason acceptable under law. And off you go. 26 seconds was the average "consultation" The foetus remains are thrown in open bins and mentally challemged people are given abortions without their consent. Women who do decide to give birth to a disabled child are looked down on and asked why didn't they just kill their child.

Fascinating stuff

Is that the article that was in the Daily Mail? That wasn't so much about abortion in the UK as it was an investigation into the operation and running of one particular abortion provider in the UK who had already been investigated by the health authorities and found to be below standards. That happens here too already in Ireland in other cases, and the best we can do to try and prevent that is not by restricting availability of abortion, but by shutting down the providers of those services who fall below health authority standards.

As for women being stigmatised who decide to go ahead with their pregnancy and give birth to children who are disabled, that's a social stigma and has nothing to do with broadening our legislation for abortion in this country. You simply cannot legislate for the attitudes of ignorant fcukwits.

One eyed Jack

mahamageehad wrote: »

I don't agree with everything in the UK system, and there's a lot I disagree with, but that sounds a little exaggerated to me. However, I'm certainly open to evaluating it myself so I'd appreciate a link to the article if you have one handy?

pilly wrote: »

I'd love to see a link to this article.

jameorahiely wrote: »

Abortions already tale place. Perhaps we should be lookimg at changing the leglislation and not the constitution.

What do the repeal crowd think of that?

Personally, I would like the 8th repealed as I feel that my life is more important that an embryos.

Absolam wrote: »

Odd. I would have said the very opposite; the 8th is so specific that it leaves the barest amount of room for maneuver. It can't be argued that it leaves room to allow the destruction of a life in any circumstance (FFA etc) except where the destruction of another life is likely. It's the specificity of the 8th that's most likely to give people reason to consider repeal, in order to make allowance for the hard cases they feel should be allowed for.

Apologies, I was unclear. I meant it's vague in its wording. That's why we had the braindead girl as incubator case and it can be argued that Savita's death was a direct result of the 8th. I think we'll see more of these edge cases in the future. The PLPA2013 is very specific and also allows very little room for manoeuvre. I think most people would be happy with repealing the 8th if the result was the PLPA2013 stood, potentially with an amendment allowing for FFA. Sadly, the repeal campaign don't appear to be really spearheading that point.

jameorahiely wrote: »

I was reading a good article the other day about conveyer belt abortions in the uk. The doctor signs all the forms without meeting the patient. The receptionist will change your reason for getting one to a reason acceptable under law. And off you go. 26 seconds was the average "consultation" The foetus remains are thrown in open bins and mentally challemged people are given abortions without their consent. Women who do decide to give birth to a disabled child are looked down on and asked why didn't they just kill their child.

Fascinating stuff

Where was this article published?
Appears to have some mistakes, if you could link to it, I'd like to have a read

Edit, just saw the link!

Tigger

MightyMandarin wrote: »

I answered this at least twice in the thread already, but anyway, life is equal as it is in the case where the mother is raped, but I feel it's unconscionable to force a woman fulfill the pregnancy in this case and I believe an exception should be made on moral grounds.

i disagree
either its ok to terminate the pregnency at x weeks or it isn't
wheter the child was the product of consent or not is irrelevant
i also thonk that unless there was some really unusua;l stuff happebing the unfortunate that was raped would be very aware thsat she didn;t want a pregnancy and could terminate itr asap

LuckyLloyd

Abortion provision on demand, for money, few if any questions asked. Ireland will not vote for that, probably not in my lifetime. If the Repeal campaign don't understand that they will lose decisively in late 2018 and have the issue off the agenda for another decade at least.

kylith

Absolam wrote: »

Do you think so? I reckon there are less people who travel to other countries for abortions than might avail of them if they were freely available here; many pro choice activists argue (like kylith does above) that our Constitution only keeps the poor from having abortions so that would indicate they agree. Statistically (as best as can be made out), abortion rates for Irish women are about a fifth of those for British women, so it's possible our current regime saves 80% of lives that would be lost otherwise.

It's possible, but it could also mean that Irish women are better at not getting accidentally pregnant than English women. Of course the 5,000 women a year who travel for abortions are only the ones who go to the UK, and are only the ones we know about. We have no idea how many give false addresses, go to the continent, or procure medication (approved, not approved, or herbal) to abort at home.

Interesting article, thanks for sharing. I'm not sure the actions of a substandard clinic (unclear as to whether it was one clinic in the chain or the policy of the entire chain) can be used to comment on the validity of the abortion network in the UK. It's like saying that all nursing home must be bad because there was some high profile cases of abusive ones.

However, I did learn from that article that there's no legal requirement for a doctor to actually meet the woman face to face in the UK, that is shocking. I'm currently living in Germany and counselling is mandatory. There's also a mandatory waiting period between counselling and the procedure to allow for thought. (Counselling is waived in the case of rape or medical necessity). I'm a bit shocked that the UK isn't stricter on it.

mahamageehad wrote: »

Apologies, I was unclear. I meant it's vague in its wording. That's why we had the braindead girl as incubator case and it can be argued that Savita's death was a direct result of the 8th. I think we'll see more of these edge cases in the future. The PLPA2013 is very specific and also allows very little room for manoeuvre. I think most people would be happy with repealing the 8th if the result was the PLPA2013 stood, potentially with an amendment allowing for FFA. Sadly, the repeal campaign don't appear to be really spearheading that point.

No, I think the wording is very specific. Certainly, just about every maternity related issue tends to be laid at the feet of the 8th by it's opponents, your examples above being cases in point. Realistically, the 8th is there to protect the life of the unborn, pure and simple. That means if there is a chance of doing so doctors have to try, which was the case with the woman who was kept alive when braindead; there will be a point in the future where that will work, unfortunately it's just not yet. And more balanced accounts (including the inquest) of the death of Mrs Halappanavar would say it was due to a failure in care; the inquest did not place the blame on the 8th.

neonsofa

Tigger wrote: »

i disagree
either its ok to terminate the pregnency at x weeks or it isn't
wheter the child was the product of consent or not is irrelevant
i also thonk that unless there was some really unusua;l stuff happebing the unfortunate that was raped would be very aware thsat she didn;t want a pregnancy and could terminate itr asap

I don't know what you mean by unusual stuff, the very fact that she had been raped is an unusual circumstance and trauma can play a huge part in how someone processes and deals with what happened. Many people can go into denial about what happened. Many don't report it and so don't get advice re MAP and testing etc. Stress from the aftermath of rape can cause many health issues and you may not realise that your symptoms are actually due to pregnancy. Then upon finding out you are pregnant as a result of rape there are so many emotions involved, and it is not a given that a person will not want the baby. That is also their own flesh and blood and regardless of the circumstances it is a difficult decision to make- doubly so if you were previously against abortion. It is so complex and not always simple black and white.

kylith wrote: »

It's possible, but it could also mean that Irish women are better at not getting accidentally pregnant than English women. Of course the 5,000 women a year who travel for abortions are only the ones who go to the UK, and are only the ones we know about. We have no idea how many give false addresses, go to the continent, or procure medication (approved, not approved, or herbal) to abort at home.

That could be true, sure. And no doubt there are Irish women who have abortions in places other than the UK. That doesn't seem to obviate the idea that more lives would be lost if we had a more permissive abortion regime though; even your own contention that "The only 'lives' it will save are those being born to women least able, financially or mentally, to look after a child." supports the notion.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by unusual stuff, the very fact that she had been raped is an unusual circumstance and trauma can play a huge part in how someone processes and deals with what happened. Many people can go into denial about what happened. Many don't report it and so don't get advice re MAP and testing etc. Stress from the aftermath of rape can cause many health issues and you may not realise that your symptoms are actually due to pregnancy. Then upon finding out you are pregnant as a result of rape there are so many emotions involved, and it is not a given that a person will not want the baby. That is also their own flesh and blood and regardless of the circumstances it is a difficult decision to make- doubly so if you were previously against abortion. It is so complex and not always simple black and white.

This is a point that I feel the repeal campaign have been wilfully ignoring every time they use the argument of rape to broaden our abortion laws. They assume that every woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape, would actually automatically want an abortion. I've noticed that women who have chosen not to have an abortion after being raped are actively shunned into silence by the same people who try to use their circumstances to make their argument. It's just more "doesn't fit the profile or narrative we want to portray" identity politics.

D0NNELLY

bubblypop wrote: »

Personally, I would like the 8th repealed as I feel that my life is more important that an embryos.

No need too repeal so. If it's down to your life or the baby, you can get an abortion here.

mahamageehad wrote: »

However, I did learn from that article that there's no legal requirement for a doctor to actually meet the woman face to face in the UK, that is shocking. I'm currently living in Germany and counselling is mandatory. There's also a mandatory waiting period between counselling and the procedure to allow for thought. (Counselling is waived in the case of rape or medical necessity). I'm a bit shocked that the UK isn't stricter on it.

While plenty of people like to dismiss "slippery slope" arguments the UK is a huge example of when it does happen. It was introduced to be fairly narrow, warnings were given that it could and would be expanded massively and it came to be. Another reason pointing at the UK probably won't be a winning argument.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is a point that I feel the repeal campaign have been wilfully ignoring every time they use the argument of rape to broaden our abortion laws. They assume that every woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape, would actually automatically want an abortion. I've noticed that women who have chosen not to have an abortion after being raped are actively shunned into silence by the same people who try to use their circumstances to make their argument. It's just more "doesn't fit the profile or narrative we want to portray" identity politics.

This is very true. However I do believe she should have the option to choose. But that's my own personal opinion.

Absolam wrote: »

No, I think the wording is very specific. Certainly, just about every maternity related issue tends to be laid at the feet of the 8th by it's opponents, your examples above being cases in point. Realistically, the 8th is there to protect the life of the unborn, pure and simple. That means if there is a chance of doing so doctors have to try, which was the case with the woman who was kept alive when braindead; there will be a point in the future where that will work, unfortunately it's just not yet. And more balanced accounts (including the inquest) of the death of Mrs Halappanavar would say it was due to a failure in care; the inquest did not place the blame on the 8th.

The 8th specifies "the right to life of the unborn" but not when that right to life begins. That's problematic. One could argue that means life takes place at conception, but then the morning after pill shouldn't be allowed. If it's not at conception, then when is it? That's the issue I struggle with with the 8th.

Fully aware that in the Halappanavar case the inquest didn't put the blame on the 8th. That's why I specifically said it could be argued. The question is, are there situations where a woman will be denied proper care while pregnant? If that is the case, then at what stage in the process before it becomes deadly are doctors likely to step in. I don't think there are easy answers to these by the way. In the Halappanavar case I think that the bias against women's pain was a key factor. The Atlantic published a very thought-provoking piece on that recently.

For the other case I mentioned, doctors testified that the foetus didn't stand a chance. The family had to take that to high court. If there had been a chance of a successful birth, I think it would have been a completely different scenario.

I'm fully supportive of limited abortion availability and allowing choice to a certain extent. I'm assuming you're opposed to abortion in any form (outside of what's currently allowed)? In that case, we'll have to agree to disagree and be thankful to live in a country where we're allowed freely express our opinions.

drkpower

Absolam wrote: »

And more balanced accounts (including the inquest) of the death of Mrs Halappanavar would say it was due to a failure in care; the inquest did not place the blame on the 8th.

An inquest doesnt lay blame anywhere; it is legislatively precluded from so doing.

However, the very first recommendation made by the jury alluded to the difficulties that the 8th amendment poses, and posed, in that case.

The recommendations
1 The Medical Council should lay out exactly when a doctor can intervene to save the life of the mother in similar circumstances, which would remove doubt and fear from the doctor and also reassure the public. An Bord Altranais should have similar directives for midwives so that the two professions always complement one another.

volchitsa

drkpower wrote: »

An inquest doesnt lay blame anywhere; it is legislatively precluded from so doing.

However, the very first recommendation made by the jury alluded to the difficulties that the 8th amendment poses, and posed, in that case.

Am I right in thinking that the various guidelines related to POLDP were very slow in being published? Do doctors and midwives have full guidelines available to them now?

jameorahiely

bubblypop wrote: »

Where was this article published?
Appears to have some mistakes, if you could link to it, I'd like to have a read

Edit, just saw the link!

Can you poimt out what mistakes you feel there are?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is a point that I feel the repeal campaign have been wilfully ignoring every time they use the argument of rape to broaden our abortion laws. They assume that every woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape, would actually automatically want an abortion. I've noticed that women who have chosen not to have an abortion after being raped are actively shunned into silence by the same people who try to use their circumstances to make their argument. It's just more "doesn't fit the profile or narrative we want to portray" identity politics.

I don't assume every woman pregnant as a result of rape wants an abortion. She may decide she wants to continue with the pregnancy regardless. She may have the baby and give it up for adoption. But, particularly in traumatic circumstances such as group rape, I believe she should have a choice in whether she wants to continue.

Deleted User wrote: »

While plenty of people like to dismiss "slippery slope" arguments the UK is a huge example of when it does happen. It was introduced to be fairly narrow, warnings were given that it could and would be expanded massively and it came to be. Another reason pointing at the UK probably won't be a winning argument.

It's a fair point. It doesn't justify the slippery slope argument though in my opinion. It further strengthens my view that legislation around abortion, if introduced would need to be carefully evaluated. Many countries have abortion policies that allow limited choice while keeping stringent safeguards in place. I imagine people use the parallel of the UK as it's where most Irish women end up to get abortions, but I doubt most are actually familiar with abortion law in the UK. I'm certainly not. I thought it was on-demand up to a certain time (first trimester). I didn't realise there needed to be "medical" grounds for it and two doctors needed to sign off on it. It's certainly never talked about in that way.

Grayson

One eyed Jack wrote: »

This is a point that I feel the repeal campaign have been wilfully ignoring every time they use the argument of rape to broaden our abortion laws. They assume that every woman who becomes pregnant as a result of rape, would actually automatically want an abortion. I've noticed that women who have chosen not to have an abortion after being raped are actively shunned into silence by the same people who try to use their circumstances to make their argument. It's just more "doesn't fit the profile or narrative we want to portray" identity politics.

Firstly, you mention that women may choose not to terminate a pregnancy that was caused by rape. Sure, they might, if they had any choice at all. The way the law is, they have no choice, and that's the point of the repeal the 8th campaign.

Secondly, no-one should be shunned for deciding to terminate or keep a pregnancy. You mentioned that you see this happen a lot. I presume you can show examples of women being shunned for being pregnant.

mahamageehad wrote: »

The 8th specifies "the right to life of the unborn" but not when that right to life begins. That's problematic. One could argue that means life takes place at conception, but then the morning after pill shouldn't be allowed. If it's not at conception, then when is it? That's the issue I struggle with with the 8th.

Well, the Supreme Court has already ruled it begins at implantation, so no need to struggle unless we have a referendum on the point, in which I'd say vote your conscience.

mahamageehad wrote: »

Fully aware that in the Halappanavar case the inquest didn't put the blame on the 8th. That's why I specifically said it could be argued.

Sure; that's why it often is argued, that was my point.

mahamageehad wrote: »

The question is, are there situations where a woman will be denied proper care while pregnant? If that is the case, then at what stage in the process before it becomes deadly are doctors likely to step in. I don't think there are easy answers to these by the way. In the Halappanavar case I think that the bias against women's pain was a key factor. The Atlantic published a very thought-provoking piece on that recently.

You might ask first, what do we call proper care? In Ireland proper care is care that will preserve the health of the mother, but not at the expense of the life of the child, and will preserve the life of the mother, even at the expense of the life of the child. Having answered that, you can say, no, there should not be situations where a woman will be denied proper care when pregnant.

mahamageehad wrote: »

For the other case I mentioned, doctors testified that the foetus didn't stand a chance. The family had to take that to high court. If there had been a chance of a successful birth, I think it would have been a completely different scenario.

Indeed, and that would be quite right; if there actually was a chance of saving the child's life then somatic support should be maintained regardless of anyone's wishes.

Grayson

mahamageehad wrote: »

The 8th specifies "the right to life of the unborn" but not when that right to life begins. That's problematic. One could argue that means life takes place at conception, but then the morning after pill shouldn't be allowed. If it's not at conception, then when is it? That's the issue I struggle with with the 8th.

Fully aware that in the Halappanavar case the inquest didn't put the blame on the 8th. That's why I specifically said it could be argued. The question is, are there situations where a woman will be denied proper care while pregnant? If that is the case, then at what stage in the process before it becomes deadly are doctors likely to step in. I don't think there are easy answers to these by the way. In the Halappanavar case I think that the bias against women's pain was a key factor. The Atlantic published a very thought-provoking piece on that recently.

For the other case I mentioned, doctors testified that the foetus didn't stand a chance. The family had to take that to high court. If there had been a chance of a successful birth, I think it would have been a completely different scenario.

I'm fully supportive of limited abortion availability and allowing choice to a certain extent. I'm assuming you're opposed to abortion in any form (outside of what's currently allowed)? In that case, we'll have to agree to disagree and be thankful to live in a country where we're allowed freely express our opinions.

The investigation into Savita did place the blame on the 8th. There were over 20 points of failure in her treatment. Each led to her death. However the HIQA report into the events did say that if the pregnancy had been terminated when she requested it, she would have probably survived. It also stated that at that point the best treatment was a termination. And that she was refused it because of the 8th.

The report is here. I'd recommend reading it.
https://www.hiqa.ie/reports-and-publications/key-reports-and-investigations/patient-safety-investigation-report

Pro lifers like to point out it was a string of failures in care that lead to her death. They're right, if she had been given proper care it probably have never reached the point where she needed a termination. However that ignores the point that she did need a termination to save her life at one point.

drkpower wrote: »

An inquest doesnt lay blame anywhere; it is legislatively precluded from so doing.
However, the very first recommendation made by the jury alluded to the difficulties that the 8th amendment poses, and posed, in that case.

Would you prefer if I said the inquest did not find the 8th was a contributory factor in the cause of death? Certainly the recommendation you quoted indicates they don't see that it prevents a doctor from intervening to save the life of the mother in similar circumstances, only that doctors could have doubts about doing so which should be assuaged with proper guidelines for how to go about it.

pilly

jameorahiely wrote: »

I was reading a good article the other day about conveyer belt abortions in the uk. The doctor signs all the forms without meeting the patient. The receptionist will change your reason for getting one to a reason acceptable under law. And off you go. 26 seconds was the average "consultation" The foetus remains are thrown in open bins and mentally challemged people are given abortions without their consent. Women who do decide to give birth to a disabled child are looked down on and asked why didn't they just kill their child.

Fascinating stuff

It doesn't appear to say anywhere in that article that mentally challenged people are given abortions without their consent?