aloyisious wrote: » I'd argue that the OATP act doesn't include the notion that it could be used to harm a patient under one's care in hospital in order to protect another person, esp in the case we are discussing. I'd posit that getting an order from a judge to allow feeding or medication of a patient is the only legal way to go, having made clear to him/her the medical reasons why. There's precedence that way. As far as I can see, you, volchitsa and Recedite were debating the same issue; that of a pregnant patient's bodily integrity, force-feeding her and applying medication against her stated wishes, when Recedite mentioned that a judge might agree with a doctor on the above acts, after the deeds were done without prior legal authority. I'd suggest that if one told a judge one thought it was legal to use force (under OATP act provisions) against a patient because one felt quite literally one can, and morally should, legally harm one person (the pregnant woman) in order to help another person (in this specific case, the person to be protected being the feotus inside a pregnant hospital patient) in line with the law, the judge might deliver a different point of view. In any case, this little debate about one specific case won't get away from abortion here and the overall allowance within POLDPA for it, the primary law (IMO) covering the situation the patient was in and the debate in general.
aloyisious wrote: » I'd argue that the OATP act doesn't include the notion that it could be used to harm a patient under one's care in hospital in order to protect another person, esp in the case we are discussing. I'd posit that getting an order from a judge to allow feeding or medication of a patient is the only legal way to go, having made clear to him/her the medical reasons why. There's precedence that way.
aloyisious wrote: » As far as I can see, you, volchitsa and Recedite were debating the same issue; that of a pregnant patient's bodily integrity, force-feeding her and applying medication against her stated wishes, when Recedite mentioned that a judge might agree with a doctor on the above acts, after the deeds were done without prior legal authority. I'd suggest that if one told a judge one thought it was legal to use force (under OATP act provisions) against a patient because one felt quite literally one can, and morally should, legally harm one person (the pregnant woman) in order to help another person (in this specific case, the person to be protected being the feotus inside a pregnant hospital patient) in line with the law, the judge might deliver a different point of view.
aloyisious wrote: » In any case, this little debate about one specific case won't get away from abortion here and the overall allowance within POLDPA for it, the primary law (IMO) covering the situation the patient was in and the debate in general.
Absolam wrote: » Well, you've certainly got me there. When I cited and linked the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, it was with volchitsa's assertion that "There are no situations in which you can legally choose to harm one person because you think a different person deserves help" in mind, and it didn't occur to me that anyone might imagine we were talking about God's law, it's true. I've no doubt that some will disagree with me and say it is not moral to use force to defend others and that's fine as far as it goes. And I don't think anyone has advocated the use of force beyond what is legally permissible, only noted that there are actually situations in which you can legally choose to harm one person because you think a different person deserves help.
aloyisious wrote: » Umm, the key wording to give substance to the above last two paras are "legally" and "in accordance with the law", otherwise some-one might pick the whole up wrongly and think it means something else when it comes to deciding to assault another person. I assume the use of the word "law" there means statute law, and not God's law. Some people don't know, or prefer not to, the difference.
aloyisious wrote: » In the same way, the word "morally" is capable of two completely different understandings, as it can directly relate to one's personal beliefs. 2+2 doesn't always amount to 4, or the greater good, when it comes to understanding nuanced words and their use. Any use of force in application of the law has legal strictures applied: the amount used MUST be relative AND reasonable to the cause of it's use, and the preventive reasoning behind its use MUST be reasonable.
volchitsa wrote: » Human rights don't work like that, you can't say "we only falsely imprisoned and tortured him/her for a short period of time so it's not too bad really."
volchitsa wrote: » Termination of pregnancy is not internationally understood to be a c-section by the way. If Ireland finds itself rewriting medical terminology in order to squeeze an implausible definition into it, I think Ireland is the one with the problem, not the rest of the world. It doesn't even work within the Irish context: I mean, you're not seriously suggesting that c-sections leading to a live newborn all require POLDP, are you? But if they come under the concept of termination of pregnancy, then they must do.
volchitsa wrote: » Oh, nasty. You think she has no case, so she's defrauding the taxpayer. FFS.
volchitsa wrote: » You really don't grasp the concept of harming one person in order to help someone else do you? Fluoridation of water is supposed to be beneficial for everyone. There are no situations in which you can legally choose to harm one person because you think a different person deserves help (other than self defence type situations.
volchitsa wrote: » Never mind to help a "person" whose legal existence is problematic, to say the least.
recedite wrote: » It allows termination, which can mean abortion. In this case the HSE managed to save both the lives of the mother and also the unborn, thereby complying fully with both the POLDPA and the 8th Amendment. For a short period of time, they violated the "bodily integrity" of the girl by force feeding her, and administering certain medication, including a drug to accelerate the development of proper lung function in the foetus. These actions were to safeguard the health of both, and to give the best chance of survival to the foetus. You may say that such actions, without her consent, were unacceptable.
However I am 100% certain that a judge in a court of law, if asked to balance the right to "bodily integrity" of the mother against the right to life of the foetus, will rule in favour of the latter. Anything else would be unconstitutional.
Her solicitor will also be aware of that. But that won't stop her charging a nice fat hourly rate to the taxpayer.
Bodily integrity is a very weak "right", as discovered by the numerous people who have tried to claim their bodily integrity was being violated by the state putting flouride in the water (as "medication without consent")
volchitsa wrote: » What a load of complete fantasy. January is not a couple of weeks before March - or was it April? - when her pregnancy was diagnosed, the doctor you mention was iirc the person from Spirasi, so was not going to give her any help in getting an abortion and was also the doctor who was so concerned about her mental health that they contacted the centre she was at to request that she not be left on her own - but still didn't think she was suicidal??
volchitsa wrote: » Not to mention your claim that being depressed but not suicidal gives you the right to go abroad for an abortion. Can you name where in POLDPA it says that please.
recedite wrote: » My understanding of POLDPA is that it came into force in January 2014, a couple of weeks before the girl arrived into the country pregnant. And the doctor she was seeing diagnosed her as depressed but "not suicidal". That would have made her eligible for an abortion in The Netherlands, but not in Ireland. She was shown how to finance and arrange a trip to the Netherlands at that time, but did not take it any further. A few months later she appeared at the HSE claiming to be suicidal and demanding an abortion in Ireland. Whether she was actually suicidal at that stage, or whether she had in the meantime met somebody who told her exactly what to say in order to comply with POLDPA, we don't know.
volchitsa wrote: » POLDPA is supposed to allow women to have an abortion in Ireland...
volchitsa wrote: » POLDPA is supposed to allow women to have an abortion in Ireland, if necessary, not to go to Holland for one. They can do that without POLDPA, as long as they have the money and the ability to travel.
MrPudding wrote: » I think you are being a little ingenuous in your discription. "She is suing for not having a termination! But she got one!" Yes, eventually, but her argument was her constitutional rights were breached, and she is suing for that breach. That she ultimately got a termination does not mean that her rights were not breached.
MrPudding wrote: » In addition to this, she is also suing for a number of other abuses she suffered, in connection with her "treatment". Unless you think that injections of drugs and medical procedures without proper consent, force feeding without consent and detainment without lawful authority are all ok, at least in the case of a pregnant woman...?
recedite wrote: » Its detailed in the post just before yours. E 1300 in total.
lazygal wrote: » How much would have performing an abortion when she asked for one have cost?
recedite wrote: » From the Irish Times timeline linked by absolam... The pathway to an abortion, and the means of funding it, were put in front of her there. In fairness, various state agencies and NGO's have bent over backwards trying to help the girl since she arrived in this country with all her problems. And now, egged on by her taxpayer funded solicitor, she is now trying to bite the hand that feeds her. I'd guess around 1 million euro has been spent on her so far, between social workers, medical expenses, legal expenses and basic food/accommodation. So before anyone gets up on their high horse about "her rights" saying that she deserves it all, just think about what alternative uses the money could have been put to. There are tens of thousands like her in places such as Yemen and South Sudan, watching helplessly as their own kids starve to death. The money could have fed and educated a whole village. Or used here in in Ireland, it could have provided essential treatment via the NTPF (which has been effectively broke since 2011) for people who are permanently stuck on hospital waiting lists. It would be nice if we in Ireland could solve all the problems of the world, but we can't even solve our own problems.
...Counsellor 2 contacts staff nurse 1 and explains she will give Ms Y visa application documents. She says Ms Y will need to fill them in and get passport photographs signed by a garda. Counsellor 2 advises Ms Y to speak to a community welfare officer about financial help. Ms Y has a third counselling session with IFPA. During the two-hour session the counsellor suggests she consider adoption. Ms Y says she ?would rather die than have this baby?. Counsellor 2 fills out travel application documents with her. She tells Ms Y she will need ?120 to accompany the application. They go through costs, including ?300 for a flight to the Netherlands and ?700 for a termination at the Casa Clinic in Leiden, that total ?1,300. IFPA does not receive the completed application for travel documents from Ms Y. She does not return to IFPA.
Absolam wrote: » A rather click-bait title I have to say... she's sueing because the HSE failed to provide a life saving termination, yet her pregnancy was terminated (if not the life of her child) and she is still alive.
recedite wrote: » There are a couple of points that would have to be teased out. Like which doctor said she was suicidal, and which said she wasn't, and why. My understanding of it is that at the early stage an abortion would have been lawful if she was suicidal (due to the x-case ruling) even prior to POLDPA coming into existence. Presumably that is why they are suing the Spirasi doctor; for "misdiagnosing" the extent of her suicidal ideation. Also the question of why she later disengaged from medical contact for that next long period of time, and then came back looking for an abortion when the foetus was already viable. In that later situation the HSE were following lawful procedure by terminating the pregnancy through inducing a premature birth as an alternative to aborting it. If she had proven suicidal tendencies, they were obliged to terminate the pregnancy, but not necessarily by killing the foetus. Overall, the lack of specific legislation around the issue at the time makes it harder to prove any specific wrongdoing on the part of any of the defendants.
volchitsa wrote: » One thing I don't understand, (well there are several things really) is that we were previously told she was assessed under POLDPA but here it seems to say she wasn't. Does that mean she wasn't assessed at all, or that the assessment carried out didn't fulfill POLDPA criteria in some way? Maybe because she was (untruthfully) told it was too late for a termination at that stage?
volchitsa wrote: » Another thing is the period up to 22 weeks is so vague. What happened between the diagnosis of pregnancy and the 22 week stage?
volchitsa wrote: » but I've heard the rumour is the child is in fact seriously disabled. If so I would fear the worst for him. Especially if he is in HSE care, given the abuse that vulnerable people like "Grace" were allowed to suffer.
volchitsa wrote: » I don't agree, in fact I'd put a large sum of money on the HSE settling without ever letting this go to court. They don't have a leg to stand on.
recedite wrote: » She broke off contact with the Spirasi doctor and changed address. Then just allowed the pregnancy to continue as normal.
recedite wrote: » Interesting that her solicitor is now trying to sue Spirasi and the IFPA, both of which were sympathetic to her. It must be around two years now since the free legal aid solicitor announced she was going to sue. As I said at the time, there isn't much chance of finding adequate grounds to sue anybody, but there is still plenty of money to be made out of this case, and the taxpayer will be footing the entire bill whether the claimant wins any compo or not.
recedite wrote: » I wonder how the child is doing now. Presumably adopted and living somewhere in Ireland.
She alleges the IFPA “negligently” failed to assist her in accessing an abortion. She became “increasingly distressed, isolated, desperate, frustrated and suicidal” as a result. ‘Wish to die’ She was moved to a second direct provision centre in July and accessed a GP on July 17th, 2014, where, now 22 weeks pregnant, she expressed “a wish to die rather than continue with the pregnancy”, she states. She was referred for psychiatric assessment on July 23rd, 2014, admitted to hospital with “suicidal ideation” and transferred to a maternity hospital. She was not afforded her rights to an assessment under the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, she says, but was told it was “too late” for a termination. She “expressed her unwillingness to remain” in hospital and was “threatened . . . that if she did not stay . . . she would be involuntarily detained [under] the Mental Health Act 2001.” “She was wrongfully and unlawfully detained,” says the claim. Ms Y began refusing food and fluids. HSE staff then “administered two doses of Dexamethasone . . . a steroid used to stimulate fetal lung maturation” and “failed to inform” her what it was for. This was “trespass” on her person, “assault” and “breach of [her] bodily autonomy”. On July 28th, 2014, she was told the pregnancy would be “terminated” by August 4th, 2014, “at the latest”, it is alleged. However, on July 31st, 2014, she was told legal advice was being sought, the claim says. On August 2nd, 2014, the HSE “wrongfully and without any lawful basis” sought “various orders” in the High Court about ending the pregnancy “without advising [her] of such an application nor arranging for her to be provided with legal representation”. The HSE “wrongfully and without any lawful basis”, given that Ms Y was a “competent adult with full capacity”, sought an order to “forcibly rehydrate” her. An interim order was granted, until August 5th, 2014, at which point the HSE withdrew its application and a plan was put in place to deliver the child the next day by Caesarean section. A C-section was performed on August 6th and the baby was taken into emergency care. “[Ms Y] has suffered severe personal injuries, acute mental distress, emotional harm and suffering, psychological sequelae, loss, damage, inconvenience and expense,” says the claim... “caused solely by the negligence, ... assault and battery, false imprisonment . . . reckless and intentional infliction of emotional harm and suffering . . . and failure to vindicate” her rights under the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
