Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

While I'm here, I'll post up this link to the other side of the coin pregnancy-wise, which there are always two of. Personally I'd call it an ode to mothers. It doesn't change my belief that women are the best judge of what to do at their singular personal level when it comes to their pregnancies, but accentuates it.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwih0fe2gbjUAhXHCcAKHTNoANcQFgglMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2Fentry%2Fmoms-speech-about-her-baby-with-down-syndrome-will-take-your-breath-away_us_5936f60ce4b0cfcda9184e71&usg=AFQjCNHH3PUu9CJFRT0uVZaGv0Ip3d_c9A

Delirium wrote: »

From the article:
So she was sectioned because she was deemed a risk of suicide due to the pregnancy on evidence of a psychiatrist.
The legislation for suicide and abortion is:
She was sectioned instead of this being followed.
This is why it's problematic to have clauses of when to allow for abortion instead of having easier access to abortion.

Thats a rather selective rendition, isn't it? The legislation says it shall be lawful to carry out an abortion when there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of suicide, and in the doctors reasonable opinion that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure. This was not the opinion of the doctors, was it?
You are correct, this causes problems for people who want elective abortion, because it only permits neccasary abortion.

aloyisious wrote: »

The judge hearing the case and the evidence of the two psychiatrists that the girl was never mentally ill decided that there was no need for the girl to be kept within the Mental Health facility under the Mental Health act.

Well, the actual reports says, "An Order detaining a pregnant child under Section 25 of the Mental Health Act 2001 was discharged by a District Court judge on the grounds that the child no longer had a mental health disorder in accordance with section 3 of the Mental Health Act.". So I think that 'the girl was never mentally ill' is a conclusion you arrived at independent of the facts.....

aloyisious wrote: »

As for the girl NOT being in need of an abortion, well, that was also the diagnosis of the first psychiatrist, whose evaluation........

Doesn't seem to have been disputed? There's no record that any of the other doctors recommended an abortion, is there?

Delirium

Absolam wrote: »

Thats a rather selective rendition, isn't it? The legislation says it shall be lawful to carry out an abortion when there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of suicide, and in the doctors reasonable opinion that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure. This was not the opinion of the doctors, was it?

Don't know, as I've not read anything to say that the protocols were observered. The girl was sectioned instead.

You are correct, this causes problems for people who want elective abortion, because it only permits neccasary abortion.

If someone is pregnant and doesn't wish to continue with the pregnancy, the it would follow that an abortion is necessary.

Delirium wrote: »

Don't know, as I've not read anything to say that the protocols were observered. The girl was sectioned instead.

Whatever about 'instead' there's certainly nothing to say that any doctor thought an abortion was a suitable course for dealing with her mental issues... whether or not you think protocols were followed (not that there's any reason to think they weren't) the opinions I asked you about were set out in the report, weren't they?

Delirium wrote: »

If someone is pregnant and doesn't wish to continue with the pregnancy, the it would follow that an abortion is necessary.

No. It only follows that an abortion is desired.

Delirium

Absolam wrote: »

Whatever about 'instead' there's certainly nothing to say that any doctor thought an abortion was a suitable course for dealing with her mental issues...

She was deemed suicidal enough to be sectioned, but not suicidal enough for an abortion.

One could take the cynical view that she was sectioned so as to avoid the protocols being observed and an abortion potentially being made available to the girl.

No. It only follows that an abortion is desired.

How else is the girl to terminate the pregnancy?

According to the Act, a pregnant woman or girl who is expressing suicidal thoughts and seeking an abortion may have one if three medical practitioners, including two psychiatrists, have ?jointly certified in good faith? that there is a real and substantial risk to her life by suicide which can only be averted by an abortion.

From my reading of the article, it seems one psychiatrist thought she had certifiable mental problems, and two psychiatrists disagreed. The court went with the majority and released her.

But the guy who thought she was suicidal said that an abortion would not cure the problem, which is presumably why he signed her into an institution instead of signing off "that there is a real and substantial risk to her life by suicide which can only be averted by an abortion".

It's not clear why the mother and daughter thought they were traveling to Dublin for an abortion. I would not be inclined to believe that any of the professionals involved told them that, unless they could produce some evidence for it.
If they were misled in this way, then I'd expect some disciplinary proceedings to be brought against whoever misled them.

There was more info revealed by a TUSLA official on RTE radio news late in the Drive-time programme. It seem's the sectioning hearing was done at a court hearing outside Dublin [probably, in that case, the circuit court] with the psychiatrist telling the court that an abortion would be of no help to the girl, that in his opinion she required mental health treatment and he asked for her to be committed to a mental health facility. The girl was referred on to the psychiatrist by the doctor she had gone to see about her pregnancy. The reason he referred her on has not been made clear, it may well have been the 1st step as per POLDPA or it might have been her state of agitation caused by her pregnancy but we'll probably never know, unless the girl breaks her silence. It was the decision and act of one [1] doctor that led to the girl being sectioned.

No mention was made in the news interview of the girl or her mother being at that sitting so they may not have been aware of the circuit court order committing the girl to a HSE mental health facility, as requested by the 1st psychiatrist. Ne mention was made of what way [or by which state agency] the girl was conveyed to Dublin, following on from the committal order being granted to the 1st psychiatrist. However, from the time the order was granted, the state [HSE] was responsible for her safe custody. It may have been an ex-parte hearing due to the nature of the order being sought.

After the girl was committed to the mental health facility, she came under the care of a 2nd psychiatrist who, after examining her, formed the opinion that she was NOT mentally ill. He {along with the 3rd psychiatrist who also examined the girl and came to the same conclusion] took steps to have the matter brought to Court. One of those 2 psychiatrists is a specialist in treating children of the girls age group. TUSLA [child and family agency] also entered the picture around this time due to the fact the girl was in HSE care at the facility, As the mental health facility was in Dublin, the 2nd court sitting was at Dublin District court, the court with jurisdiction in Dublin.

After the district court judge voided the girl's committment, the HSE and TUSLA involvement ended as the girl was free. The TULSA official could not confirm whether or not the girl had an abortion after she was released as she was no longer under HSE care.

So from the information provided, its not possible to tell whether she had an abortion or not. The second pair of psychiatrists may, or may not, have certified that she needed an abortion to avert the threat of suicide.

The court case as reported was only concerned with the committal order, and not with what happened after she was released.

recedite wrote: »

So from the information provided, its not possible to tell whether she had an abortion or not. The second pair of psychiatrists may, or may not, have certified that she needed an abortion to avert the threat of suicide.

The court case as reported was only concerned with the committal order, and not with what happened after she was released.

True enough, they were only doing their jobs within the HSE mental health system and were basically functionless with regard to the help she had sought from the doctor who'd referred her on to the 1st psychiatrist. The girl would probably have had to see another medical doctor and this time ensure the referral routine, as outlined in POLDPA, was followed to her benefit.

There's a follow-up item in the I/T from Prof V O'Keane, consultant psychiatrist at Tallaght Hospital and senior professorial lecturer, psychiatry dept, Trinity College.

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

Vincent Browne: there has to be something seriously wrong with a system that does that to a girl who sought an abortion {he referring to her being locked up in a Psychiatric Hospital].

The IT may be guilty of sensationalist reporting there in attributing the word "lottery" to the professor. Further down in the text the actual quote I can see is "complex, arduous and not guaranteed" which is not the same as saying "a lottery".
Is the newspaper alleging that it is lottery whether the patient gets to see a good psychiatrist or a bad one? In that case its also a lottery whether the patient gets locked up or not, and a second lottery for the abortion.
But this court case seems to have proven that even if it was a lottery, the lottery result is not final anyway, because it can be changed. Ergo, not a lottery.

Delirium wrote: »

She was deemed suicidal enough to be sectioned, but not suicidal enough for an abortion. One could take the cynical view that she was sectioned so as to avoid the protocols being observed and an abortion potentially being made available to the girl.:

I don't think any of the doctors said she was suicidal enough to be sectioned, but not suicidal enough for an abortion, did they? In fact, the report clearly states that one psychiatrist felt an abortion would not solve her issues, and doesn't say that either of the other psychiatrists felt it would. The idea that doctors would makes clinical decisions 'so as to avoid the protocols' sounds less like cynicism and more like a conspiracy theory to be honest; committing someone to a mental institution is a pretty dubious means of avoiding other medical involvement.

Delirium wrote: »

How else is the girl to terminate the pregnancy?

How does that question have anything to do with whether what she wanted was a desire or a necessity?

From what's being provided by the media today, it's almost like the wheels have fallen off the POLDPA "vehicle" in so far as it's Psychiatric Services co-drivers are concerned.

Does that mean the usual critics of Ireland's position on abortion are being usually critical?

The issue was raised by Sean O'Rourke interviewing several TD's [one a minister] and senator James Reilly [former MOH] about Enda's departure and service. With Sean hopping between them for answers, one of them [I think JR] said he will be asking questions [in the house or senate] about the way the girl was treated initially, ref her commitment to the health facility. Presumably he's talking about members of his profession.

Are you presuming he's talking about politicians or GPs?

aloyisious wrote: »

The issue was raised by Sean O'Rourke interviewing several TD's ...

I don't think we can expect to get any work out of the TDs for the rest of the summer. They are as giddy as kids on their last day at school.

recedite wrote: »

I don't think we can expect to get any work out of the TDs for the rest of the summer. They are as giddy as kids on their last day at school.

True enough, they'd probably avoid it like the plague.

Bristolscale7

UN repeats criticism of Ireland's 'cruel and inhumane' abortion laws: Committee finds in favour of Siobh?n Whelan, who was denied a termination despite fatal foetal syndrome diagnosis

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/13/un-denounces-ireland-abortion-laws-as-cruel-and-inhumane-again

I heard a more up-to-date report on the matter re the girl, the psychiatrists evaluations of her mental health and the courts. It seems that after the girl was given an examination by the mental health facility's psychiatrist specializing in providing care to adolescents, he formed [as I understood previously] a different opinion to the psychiatrist who had the girl sectioned. He informed the 1st psychiatrist of his findings following which the 1st psychiatrist concurred with his evaluation and decided to change his earlier opinion, the one he'd used to get the court permission for committal.

[edit] It'd be safe to assume that he met with the 2nd psychiatrist, went over that person's findings before he changed his original diagnosis.

The two psychiatrists new diagnosis were used to overturn the committal in the 2nd court hearing. Edit: It'd be also safe to assume they were both at that court hearing so that the judge there could hear their evidence and the change in the 1st diagnosis from the 1st psychiatrist in person to establish clarity of facts. It seems there were only two [2] psychiatrists involved with the girl in total, not three.

Oh damn: I forgot to mention the above was reported on the RTE 1 radio news between 7 and 9 AM today. Luckily enough RTE does have a system where people really wishing to hear playback of it's news reports and programmes can seek them out online to listen to them. Something of a court report.

Given the rather speculative interpretation of previous reports offered above, I think it would be prudent to ask for a source for this particular rendition of events before commenting on your version of it

Leo announces he will hold a referendum in 2018.
It will all depend on the wording.

recedite wrote: »

Leo announces he will hold a referendum in 2018.
It will all depend on the wording.

Imagine the wordsmiths will be putting proposal A, proposal B & variations to De Taoiseach and De Minister long before that, with Leo knowing FG party opponents to any changes will be muttering in the wings. The new AG, Seamus Woulfe, will get a blooding in legal advisement of the Govt.

aloyisious wrote: »

The new AG, Seamus Woulfe, will get a blooding in legal advisement of the Govt.

Indeed. The departure of the previous one is being portrayed in the media as a "stroke" being pulled for her promotion, but I suspect this could be one of those situations where the best way to get rid of a civil servant is to "promote" them.

Classy behaviour from the Legatus Lackeys.

A big thank's to Peregrinus on the other abortion/referendum issue thread. Excellent and gap-filling read on the situation of the girl....

Thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=103820303

PopePalpatine

robindch

There's a march this Saturday organized by a group which seems to be affiliated with Youth Defence, The Life Institute and Precious Life:

https://rallyforlife.net/dublin-2017/

It's being promoted as an "All Ireland" affair, so I imagine that the streets will be at least temporarily heaving with DUP supporters.

PopePalpatine

robindch wrote: »

There's a march this Saturday organized by a group which seems to be affiliated with Youth Defence, The Life Institute and Precious Life:

https://rallyforlife.net/dublin-2017/

It's being promoted as an "All Ireland" affair, so I imagine that the streets will be at least temporarily heaving with DUP supporters.

That'd allow the Legatus Lackeys to weasel out of accusations of wanting to re-impose a Catholic state. :rolleyes:

Delirium

Data on abortions carried out in Ireland in 2016.

LAST YEAR, 25 legally-permitted abortions were carried out in Ireland, according to figures from the Department of Health.
The third annual report on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 has been handed to the Houses of the Oireachtas today as required under section 20 of the Act.
Of that total number, the procedures were carried out for a range of reasons:
8 procedures were due to a risk of physical illness

1 was due to a risk from suicide

16 were carried out because of emergencies arising from physical illnesses.

Source