Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

gctest50 · 12-06-2017 09:20PM

py2006 wrote: »

I don't get it. Why was she sectioned? Surely there is a reason other than her wanting an abortion?

Surely part of it must be the inbreds would be howling for that psychs head if a pregnant girl went out a few days later and topped herself ?

koumi · 12-06-2017 09:22PM

God, this thread is painful

12-06-2017 09:23PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Psychiatrists are doctors and while the Hippocratic Oath is not the 'done thing' in Ireland, you'll find that they all get into the profession from a desire to 'do no harm'.

It's a little insulting to doctors up-and-down the land to even ask the question.

You're implying they would be willing to risk the health and, ultimately, the life of their patient due to some private opinion on abortion?

Our doctors work hard in this country. Nobody is saying they are flawless and nobody is saying our health services have no problems.

But questioning the core ethics of doctors is shameful.

everybody needs oversight, doctors, nurses, teachers, gardai etc etc
sure there have been cases where doctors have been murderers, there is no harm at all in oversight.

Im not sure where you plucked the questioning the core ethics of doctors from!!

cnocbui · 12-06-2017 09:27PM

Feisar wrote: »

Just to take the pistachios, the vast amount of the blue is taken up by the US who elected Trump, Russia who have Putin and China who are are hardly bastions of human rights.

A stupid line of un-reasoning if ever there were one.

JP Liz V1 · 12-06-2017 09:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The situation that led to this child being pregnant isn't clear from the article. It's very unfair to make judgements in this vein.

I take it she had no mental health issues before the pregnancy?

I feel that abortion should not be seen as birth control instead of the many other forms of contraception that is available and yes I know nothing is 100% besides abstinence

I know we don't know all the facts of this girl's story

cnocbui · 12-06-2017 09:37PM

Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: »

She has no right to an abortion in our legislation so her rights weren't denied.

If people care so much about the entire abortion issue then perhaps they need to start lobbying TD's, protesting, petitions etc and do it in a much stronger way than has been in the past.Turn it into a key issue however too many people in this country just whinge and moan about this law without actually doing anything to change it.

Lots of people get sectioned so for all that you know about this entire case the 100% correct decision could have been reached and I'd trust the judgment of a medical professional who has dealt with the girl than somebody on the internet with zero knowledge of the case.

FFS!

The Furore over this case is exactly because she should have had a good prospect of having an abortion, allowed for by legislation. The act does not say a woman who is suicidal at the thought of carrying her pregnancy to term should be immediately incarcerated in a mental institution! I wouldn't trust the opinion of a medical professional who tried to subvert the act and did not seek second or third opinions from other medical professionals.

A judge and another medical professional did not agree with the 'professional' who's judgement you think should not be questioned.

12-06-2017 09:40PM

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

I take it she had no mental health issues before the pregnancy?

I feel that abortion should not be seen as birth control instead of the many other forms of contraception that is available and yes I know nothing is 100% besides abstinence

I know we don't know all the facts of this girl's story

I think the most important fact that has been reported on to take into consideration is the fact that she is a child.

A child cannot consent to sex below the age of 17 - never mind expecting them to consent responsibly.

gctest50 · 12-06-2017 09:41PM

bubblypop wrote: »

wonderfullife wrote: »

Psychiatrists are doctors and while the Hippocratic Oath is not the 'done thing' in Ireland, you'll find that they all get into the profession from a desire to 'do no harm'.

It's a little insulting to doctors up-and-down the land to even ask the question.

You're implying they would be willing to risk the health and, ultimately, the life of their patient due to some private opinion on abortion?

Our doctors work hard in this country. Nobody is saying they are flawless and nobody is saying our health services have no problems.

But questioning the core ethics of doctors is shameful.

everybody needs oversight, doctors, nurses, teachers, gardai etc etc
sure there have been cases where doctors have been murderers, there is no harm at all in oversight.

Im not sure where you plucked the questioning the core ethics of doctors from!!

It's not "questioning core ethics" - maybe someday one of them will go off the beaten path

you might end up with some really wonky variation of this sort of thing :

Nurse induced respiratory depression by succinylcholine--the 'hero syndrome'.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23677532

AnGaelach · 12-06-2017 09:43PM

cnocbui wrote: »

A stupid line of un-reasoning if ever there were one.

So is thinking "well everyone else is doing it why can't we do it as well?!"

gctest50 · 12-06-2017 09:46PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

So is thinking "well everyone else is doing it why can't we do it as well?!"

So why aren't we doing it then ?

Do it just like the UK where the women all get "sent" ?

Anita Blow · 12-06-2017 09:48PM

cnocbui wrote: »

FFS!

The Furore over this case is exactly because she should have had a good prospect of having an abortion, allowed for by legislation. The act does not say a woman who is suicidal at the thought of carrying her pregnancy to term should be immediately incarcerated in a mental institution! I wouldn't trust the opinion of a medical professional who tried to subvert the act and did not seek second or third opinions from other medical professionals.

A judge and another medical professional did not agree with the 'professional' who's judgement you think should not be questioned.

Detention for suicidal risk is provided for by the Mental Health Act 2001, not the POLDP Act. A person who is acutely suicidal will be detained regardless of their reasons for suicide so the fact she was pregnant would not have factored heavily into the detention order.

The psychiatrist didn't subvert the act at all. In fact the addressed the specific test criteria as per the report the article is based on.

The consultant psychiatrist was of the opinion that while the child was at risk of self harm and suicide as a result of the pregnancy, this could be managed by treatment and that termination of the pregnancy was not the solution for all of the child’s problems at that stage.

So criteria A of the act was met, but not b. As such, the psychiatrist, acting as per the POLDP Act, had no indication to refer on to the 2nd psychiatrist. That referral is only made where abortion is the only option to manage the patient's suicidal intent.

Also as per the report, neither the judge nor the other medical professional contradicted the original psychiatrist.

The GAL pointed out that there was no conflict regarding the evidence from the two consultant psychiatrists. The consultant adolescent psychiatrist said that there was an initial concern of self-harm and that she was very distressed to find out about the pregnancy

mahamageehad · 12-06-2017 09:49PM

From having re-read the report, two things jumped out at me:

The GAL outlined that although an application was made in respect of the child’s right to travel, it was not necessary that the court consider the application under that ground, but rather solely on the basis that the child did not have a mental health disorder and therefore could not be detained under the Mental Health Act 2001.

I don't understand this. I think this is saying that she made an application to travel for an abortion, but that wasn't considered in the judges decision. I don't understand why she had to make an application though, don't women have the right to travel?

And:

The judge also noted that a GAL had been appointed for the unborn child in accordance with the case law in the High Court.

This also seems really unusual to me. Is this standard practice? Reminds me of that actress that was recently being sued by her frozen eggs.

12-06-2017 10:03PM

mahamageehad wrote: »

From having re-read the report, two things jumped out at me:

I don't understand this. I think this is saying that she made an application to travel for an abortion, but that wasn't considered in the judges decision. I don't understand why she had to make an application though, don't women have the right to travel?
.

I would imagine that her right to travel was denied as she was sectioned against her will by a pyschiatrist.

AnGaelach · 12-06-2017 10:08PM

gctest50 wrote: »

So why aren't we doing it then ?

Because we don't want to do it.

gctest50 wrote: »

Do it just like the UK where the women all get "sent" ?

Why do people think that we should facilitate those who are circumventing our laws as some kind of grounds for debate? Should we facilitate those who go to Thailand to bang 12 year old prostitutes? Utter nonsense.

mahamageehad · 12-06-2017 10:09PM

bubblypop wrote: »

I would imagine that her right to travel was denied as she was sectioned against her will by a pyschiatrist.

Ah ok, sorry that makes sense! I was wondering if there were some restrictions on the right to travel (maybe a ward of the state, or her age, or migrant status with a strict visa or even a refugee).

12-06-2017 10:15PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because we don't want to do it.
.

that's not absolutely true, I'm in my forties, I have never had a vote to legislate either way about abortion.
That's 22 years, there's a lot of people in those 22 years who haven't had a vote on this.

cnocbui · 12-06-2017 10:15PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

Detention for suicidal risk is provided for by the Mental Health Act 2001, not the POLDP Act. A person who is acutely suicidal will be detained regardless of their reasons for suicide so the fact she was pregnant would not have factored heavily into the detention order.

The psychiatrist didn't subvert the act at all. In fact the addressed the specific test criteria as per the report the article is based on.

So criteria A of the act was met, but not b. As such, the psychiatrist, acting as per the POLDP Act, had no indication to refer on to the 2nd psychiatrist. That referral is only made where abortion is the only option to manage the patient's suicidal intent.

Also as per the report, neither the judge nor the other medical professional contradicted the original psychiatrist.

Oh, come off it.

Criteria B was not met because the committing psychiatrist ignored the act and chose to make a determination that the act calls for to be made by 3 medical professionals, not one with a god complex.

The second psychiatrist certainly did contradict the first, and confronted with this embarrassment, the first psychiatrist did an about-face in front of a Judge and contradicted their earlier assement - the "did not suffer from an acute mental health disorder that warranted her detention under the Mental Health Act" part.

This psychiatrist said although the ?young girl? presented as being depressed ?there was no evidence of a psychological disorder?.

?As the young girl did not have a mental illness she could not be detained under the Mental Heath Act. ?

The consultant psychiatrist also reported that the ?young girl had very strong views as to why she wanted a termination of her pregnancy.?

The court also heard from the young girl?s treating adolescent psychiatrist who had last seen her the day before the detention application.

?He was of the opinion that while the young girl remained agitated and angry, she did not suffer from an acute mental health disorder that warranted her detention under the Mental Health Act. The consultant adolescent psychiatrist said that there was an initial concern of self-harm and that she was very distressed to find out about the pregnancy.?

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/accessing-abortion-is-a-lottery-under-irish-rules-psychiatrist-1.3116997

AnGaelach · 12-06-2017 10:17PM

bubblypop wrote: »

that's not absolutely true, I'm in my forties, I have never had a vote to legislate either way about abortion.
That's 22 years, there's a lot of people in those 22 years who haven't had a vote on this.

You didn't vote to reject the tightening of the restriction in 2002? You really only have yourself to blame if you didn't express yourself democratically.

gctest50 · 12-06-2017 10:22PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

Originally Posted by gctest50
So why aren't we doing it then ?

Because we don't want to do it.
.

Just for the sake of being different to the UK ?

AnGaelach wrote: »

Because we don't want to do it.
.

Who is this "we" you speak of ?

Those who just want to be different to the UK ?

Even though we are the same ?

AnGaelach · 12-06-2017 10:24PM

gctest50 wrote: »

Just for the sake of being different to the UK ?

For the sake of not supporting the murder of the unborn, yes.

gctest50 wrote: »

Even though we are the same ?

Alri Enda, how's Fine Gael these days? I've heard you're going into coalition with the UUP (:

mahamageehad · 12-06-2017 10:25PM

gctest50 wrote: »

Just for the sake of being different to the UK ?

Who is this "we" you speak of ?

Those who just want to be different to the UK ?

Even though we are the same ?

Farmer Ed · 12-06-2017 10:38PM

On a related topic and I am not referring to this girl here. In 1950 we had 76 reported suicides in Ireland nowadays its averaging 450 to 500 per year. In 1950 it was a lot easier to get someone sectioned than it is today and sure enough I'm sure people were abused. But as far as mental health goes the figures would suggest we are going backwards. Nowadays no matter how destructive someone is. For some reason if they are on drugs they can't be sectioned. So instead these mentally ill drug addicts are left to roam the streets until we can criminalise them. Would it not be better for someone in that condition to be sectioned before they committed a criminal offence as a result of their mental health and addiction problems? I honestly think the state is neglecting its duty to look after the mentally ill and as a result sick people are being criminalised and been effectively given death sentences by the state.

Anita Blow · 12-06-2017 10:40PM

cnocbui wrote: »

Oh, come off it.

Criteria B was not met because the committing psychiatrist ignored the act and chose to make a determination that the act calls for to be made by 3 medical professionals, not one with a god complex.

The second psychiatrist certainly did contradict the first, and confronted with this embarrassment, the first psychiatrist did an about-face in front of a Judge and contradicted their earlier assement - the "did not suffer from an acute mental health disorder that warranted her detention under the Mental Health Act" part.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/accessing-abortion-is-a-lottery-under-irish-rules-psychiatrist-1.3116997

Your interpretation of the Act is incorrect. Here is the DoH guidance on how the Act is to be applied. The process to obtaining a termination is a stepwise one. It does not involve a simultaneous assessment by 3 doctors, instead the 2nd psychiatrist is only involved once the first is satisfied all three criteria of the act have been met.

The Act does not specify that the three doctors have to examine the woman together or that they examine the woman at the same location

Depending on the circumstances, the woman might be examined by any of the
three specialists first and then, if the first specialist deems that the requirements of the test have been met, he/she shall refer her on to the second specialist, and so on. If the first specialist deems that the requirements of the test have not been met, then section 5 in this document on ‘Non-Certification’ will apply

The test criteria, all of which must be met for the 2nd doctor can be involved are below

a. there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of suicide
b. in their reasonable opinion, this risk is one that can only be averted by a termination of pregnancy, and
c. in arriving at this opinion, the medical practitioners have, in good faith, had regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable.

As per the actual report (rather than relying on a news article), the first psychiatrist had clinically justified the detention and that the Act criteria had not been met.

The consultant psychiatrist was of the opinion that while the child was at risk of self harm and suicide as a result of the pregnancy, this could be managed by treatment and that termination of the pregnancy was not the solution for all of the child’s problems at that stage.

So criteria A was met but not criteria B. And it would seem the psychiatrist was correct considering the 2nd psychiatrist also felt the girl's depression was well controlled and subsequently not at suicidal risk.

As the report itself stated that there was no conflict of interest between the two psychiatrists, nor between the psychiatrist and GAL, I'll choose to believe that.

The GAL pointed out that there was no conflict regarding the evidence from the two consultant psychiatrists. He was of the opinion that while the young girl remained agitated and angry, she did not suffer from an acute mental health disorder that warranted her detention under the Mental Health Act 2001. The consultant adolescent psychiatrist said that there was an initial concern of self-harm and that she was very distressed to find out about the pregnancy.

Grayson · 12-06-2017 10:43PM

Farmer Ed wrote: »

On a related topic and I am not referring to this girl here. In 1950 we had 76 reported suicides in Ireland nowadays its averaging 450 to 500 per year. In 1950 it was a lot easier to get someone sectioned than it is today and sure enough I'm sure people were abused. But as far as mental health goes the figures would suggest we are going backwards. Nowadays no matter how destructive someone is. For some reason if they are on drugs they can't be sectioned. So instead these mentally ill drug addicts are left to roam the streets until we can criminalise them. Would it not be better for someone in that condition to be sectioned before they committed a criminal offence as a result of their mental health and addiction problems? I honestly think the state is neglecting its duty to look after the mentally ill and as a result sick people are being criminalised and been effectively given death sentences by the state.

In the 50's suicides weren't reported.
Nowadays we have better health services. We have better treatments too. It can be a lot better but it's better than the 50's when the way a teenage pregnancy was dealt with was to ship a girl off to the laundry.

Also, you'd advocating the forced imprisonment of a large amount of people with mental health issues. You know one in four people will suffer with depression or anxiety. How many of them do you think should be locked up for their own good?

gctest50 · 12-06-2017 10:44PM

Farmer Ed wrote: »

On a related topic and I am not referring to this girl here. In 1950 we had 76 reported suicides in Ireland nowadays its averaging 450 to 500 per year. In 1950 it was a lot easier to get someone sectioned than it is today and sure enough I'm sure people were abused. But as far as mental health goes the figures would suggest we are going backwards.

Farmer Ed wrote: »

.......In 1950 we had 76 reported suicides in Ireland.......

It just wasn't reported - put down as farm accidents n all sorts

Almost a different country too,

1950 Population: 2,913,093

2017 Population: 4,749,153

have a look around this :

https://www.populationpyramid.net/ireland/1950/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1148563

Suicide in Dublin: II. The influence of some social and medical factors on coroners' verdicts.

Walsh B, Walsh D, Whelan B.
Abstract

This paper presents an analysis of the factors which influence coroners in their decision to classify some deaths as suicides and others as accidental or "open".

The most important influence on coroners' behaviour was seen to be the manner by which the person died. Those who died by cutting, hanging, drugs or gas were significantly more likely to receive a suicide verdict than those whose deaths were due to drowning, jumping, shooting or poisoning.

If the deceased left any intimation of a suicidal intent, this increased the likelihood that a suicide verdict would be returned. Finally, persons aged under 40 were significantly more likely to be returned as suicides than older victims, especially those aged over 70. All of these results show that coroners operate by observing the law as it defines suicide, that is, by looking for evidence of intent of self-inflicted death. Our findings concerning the factors associated with the suicide verdict help to clarify the meaning of the official data on suicides in Ireland, and illuminate the reasons why, using clinical rather than legal criteria, a much higher rate is obtained.

.

12-06-2017 10:45PM

AnGaelach wrote: »

You didn't vote to reject the tightening of the restriction in 2002? You really only have yourself to blame if you didn't express yourself democratically.

yes I had a vote to tighten the restriction.
I have never had a vote on the legislating of abortion or appealing the eighth amendment.
so no actual vote on abortion, no.

12-06-2017 10:53PM

Farmer Ed wrote: »

On a related topic and I am not referring to this girl here. In 1950 we had 76 reported suicides in Ireland nowadays its averaging 450 to 500 per year. In 1950 it was a lot easier to get someone sectioned than it is today and sure enough I'm sure people were abused. But as far as mental health goes the figures would suggest we are going backwards. Nowadays no matter how destructive someone is. For some reason if they are on drugs they can't be sectioned. So instead these mentally ill drug addicts are left to roam the streets until we can criminalise them. Would it not be better for someone in that condition to be sectioned before they committed a criminal offence as a result of their mental health and addiction problems? I honestly think the state is neglecting its duty to look after the mentally ill and as a result sick people are being criminalised and been effectively given death sentences by the state.

well, firstly in 1950s Ireland, suicide was not only illegal but a serious sin. Someone who committed suicide would not be buried in consecreated grounds. So, obviously people hid the actual suicides as best they could. They were afraid of the shame, thankfully most of society doesn't think like that anymore.

and, secondly, Im not sure locking people with mental health issues up, a la 1950s Ireland is a good idea! They locked a lot of people up who were not mentally unstable because of many different reasons, people with Downs for example were locked away from society, women who were seen as promiscuous etc etc.
not at drug addicts are mentally ill either, why would you think they are?

irishgirl19 · 12-06-2017 10:55PM

That woman should sue the state. Absolutely disgusting how she was treated.

koumi · 12-06-2017 10:56PM

bubblypop wrote: »

well, firstly in 1950s Ireland, suicide was not only illegal but a serious sin. Someone who committed suicide would not be buried in consecreated grounds. So, obviously people hid the actual suicides as best they could. They were afraid of the shame, thankfully most of society doesn't think like that anymore.

and, secondly, Im not sure locking people with mental health issues up, a la 1950s Ireland is a good idea! They locked a lot of people up who were not mentally unstable because of many different reasons, people with Downs for example were locked away from society, women who were seen as promiscuous etc etc.
not at drug addicts are mentally ill either, why would you think they are?

This whole thread is sad for this very reason.

12-06-2017 11:08PM

It strikes me that, in countries with restrictive abortion laws, there will be hard cases involving people with possible mental health issues, and pro-choicers will say she should have been allowed to abort.

And in countries with liberal abortion laws, there will be hard cases involving people with possible mental health issues, and pro-lifers will say she should not have been allowed to abort.

There is simply an inherent tension between the concept of choice or decision and the ability to make it.

Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

Comments