Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

greencap wrote: »

until they reach a point of calm reason yes.

you don't have to keep them there til they change their mind.

Someone going through a stage of psychosis is a perfect example of this.

Jrop wrote: »

My heart is breaking for this 14 year old girl. She must have been terrified being held against her will.
The core issue here is that a young woman rights were taken away from her. We have learned nothing in this country.

I don't know where you read that the child in this case was 14? But in any case, her rights weren't taken away from her as a Guardian Ad Litem was appointed to advocate for her welfare on her behalf.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Should we also facilitate those who travel to south east Asia to have sex with 12 year olds? Should we facilitate those who travel to Prague or Amsterdam to take drugs and sleep with prostitutes?

Absolutely nonsensical argument, that we should change our laws to accommodate those who wish to circumvent them.

AnGaelach wrote: »

I'm not in favour of giving fathers the power to compel an abortion, no. I'm not in favour of giving anyone grounds to have an abortion except in cases of foetal abnormalities, rape (so long as we can conclusively prove it to be the case) or threat to the mother's life.



The point being framed is the dichotomy of thinking that pervades a lot of the pro-Repeal crowd.

The argument is that person A should be allowed to do action A because it is their choice as a rational and individual person. This argument seems to fall on deaf ears when it is turned around:

"A woman should have the right to terminate a life because she doesn't want to raise a child"
"A man doesn't have the right to abandon his child because it's a life"

A fetus and a child are different.
And
In Irish law a fetus and a child are regarded differently.

You are trying to create this dichotomy, not your imagined enemies in "the pro-Repeal crowd".

AnGaelach wrote: »

You should read the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013.

And you should read what the subject matter of this thread concerns, which is basically a legal attempt at subversion of that act.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

A fetus and a child are different.

Not in the eyes of the 8th Amednment.

RobbieTheRobber wrote: »

You are trying to create this dichotomy, not your imagined enemies in "the pro-Repeal crowd".

It's not something magical and ephemeral that I am plucking from nothingness, it is a line of thinking with certain elements of the pro-repeal side.

AnGaelach wrote: »

Neither do I, which is why I also oppose abortions of convenience. The point wasn't that I believe men should have that right, it's that the pro-Repeal crowd seem to have this dichotomy where women get a choice on whether to have a child but men don't get this choice.

I myself am pro choice (or pro repeal if that's the term you want to use) and I would very much support a system (in theory) whereby a woman and man clearly declare their intentions and a man can "opt out" during a certain period, the earlier the better so that the woman can make an informed decision regarding her options going forward.

I think it would be best all round actually, not only in cases where the woman wants to keep the baby despite the man's wishes, but I know many women who have continued with a pregnancy with the partner/fathers "full support" and end up raising a child alone, if they had been told early on of his true intentions their decision may have been different-or not. But then again, who is to say those men would have opted out legally if it was an option.

But there are so many legal and moral minefields with that option too, especially because a man opting out while a woman continues with a pregnancy results in another person with rights etc, whereas a woman choosing a termination obviously doesn't.

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

What's with these vague stories in the Irish Times? I know they don't want to identify the girl but there are absolutely no details regarding her age or how the pregnancy came about. She could be a twelve year old that has been raped or she could be a seventeen year old that had sex with her boyfriend. They might as well not bother printing the story.

A lot of cases can't give information about children because they can be identified if the information is released. I don't know why they'd try to run full articles on them though, that seems to be a bit of a waste.

AnGaelach wrote: »

Whilst we obviously disagree on the fundamental basis of right to abortion, the coherency and consistency of your view is refreshing. I would simply disagree with the liberal nature of your assertion, not the egalitarian aspects.

That's fair enough. Can I ask what you mean by the liberal nature of my assertion?

AnGaelach wrote: »

There wasn't legal subversion, a psychiatrist did what he believed to be the most apt medical choice - which was overturned on appeal. The right to abortion from a threat of suicide is when a panel of 3 (2 psychiatrists) decide that it is adequate grounds. It's not a simple "I'm suicidal give me an abortion now pls".

In this instance, can you point to the psychiatrist in question taking steps to convene such a panel?

neonsofa wrote: »

I think the people of Ireland should be given the chance to make the societal decision to award each individual the choice. I don't know if that is the same thing..

Well, I mean, while abortion might be a good idea for certain individuals (the liberal outlook), it's not good for society as a whole on the macro level (the conservative outlook). I'm leaning towards the latter, whereas you would seem to be towards the former.

I would be very interested to know where the psychiatrist in question is working. There is more than one service in this country that is not neutral on this issue.

Furthermore, it's just another case that highlights that an exceptions based approach to abortion doesn't work. Getting psychiatrists to come in and decide whether or not someone is "suicidal enough" to have an abortion is a complete nonsense notion. A few years ago when all this was first being brought into law, the College of Psychiatrists expressed concern about their role in all of this. It's not their job to determine whether a woman should or shouldn't have an abortion. Ultimately it has to be down to the individual to make their own decisions.

Also worth mentioning that when all this rubbish about suicide risk in abortion was first brought up, the D?il assured everyone that a situation like the above would not be able to happen. And yet it seems it has. When medical professionals have nothing but flimsy guidance from legislation, ludicrous situations are always going to arise.