Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

Farmer Ed · 12-06-2017 11:13PM

I wasn't trying to say things were good in 1950. I did say people were abused then no doubt. But what I am saying is things have not got any better with regard to mental health. If anything they have got worse. First of all we have a drug problem now that we don't know how to deal with and secondly. I don't think suicides are being fully reported now either. How many road tragic deaths and farm accidents are actually suicides? We don't really know? The reality is we have no problem in criminalising and jailing the mental ill. But sanctioning someone who is mentally ill is considered a violation of a persons human rights? Why is that? Again I am not referring to this particular case here. But rather our general view as a society about sanctioning being a terribly bad thing. Sure its a last resort. But if it saves someone's life or even saves them from getting a criminal record. Is it then not the most humane option?

12-06-2017 11:24PM

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I wasn't trying to say things were good in 1950. I did say people were abused then no doubt. But what I am saying is things have not got any better with regard to mental health. If anything they have got worse. First of all we have a drug problem now that we don't know how to deal with and secondly. I don't think suicides are being fully reported now either. How many road tragic deaths and farm accidents are actually suicides? We don't really know? The reality is we have no problem in criminalising and jailing the mental ill. But sanctioning someone who is mentally ill is considered a violation of a persons human rights? Why is that? Again I am not referring to this particular case here. But rather our general view as a society about sanctioning being a terribly bad thing. Sure its a last resort. But if it saves someone's life or even saves them from getting a criminal record. Is it then not the most humane option?

I dont think anyone believes that sectioning a mentally ill person that needs it is against their human rights. Posters have an issue with this case because the girl in question was suicidal as a result of her pregnancy & the psychiatrist sectioned her, without getting other medical opinions.
I do think that we have got a hell of a lot better with regards mental health since 1950! at least we don't lock up people with Downs anymore, or the promiscuous women, or the unmarried mothers etc etc etc
Im sure suicide is still under reported, but its a lot more open now than it used to be.

Farmer Ed · 12-06-2017 11:33PM

bubblypop wrote: »

I dont think anyone believes that sectioning a mentally ill person that needs it is against their human rights. Posters have an issue with this case because the girl in question was suicidal as a result of her pregnancy & the psychiatrist sectioned her, without getting other medical opinions.
I do think that we have got a hell of a lot better with regards mental health since 1950! at least we don't lock up people with Downs anymore, or the promiscuous women, or the unmarried mothers etc etc etc
Im sure suicide is still under reported, but its a lot more open now than it used to be.

I agree I am off topic here a bit and can I replete again I am not talking about this girl when I make this observation. But you can take it as fact. No matter how mentality ill a person is in this country, under the current law it is next to impossible to sanction someone if there is any suggestion they are using drugs. So if a family member who is concerned for their safety goes to the GP or the Guards. Effectively there is nothing they can do apart from watch the loved one destroy their life. Meanwhile the family member is offered counseling. Trust me I know what I'm talking about here. The system is badly broken ask any Guard or GP who is dealing with this day in day out.

12-06-2017 11:42PM

Farmer Ed wrote: »

I agree I am off topic here a bit and can I replete again I am not talking about this girl when I make this observation. But you can take it as fact. No matter how mentality ill a person is in this country, under the current law it is next to impossible to sanction someone if there is any suggestion they are using drugs. So if a family member who is concerned for their safety goes to the GP or the Guards. Effectively there is nothing they can do apart from watch the loved one destroy their life. Meanwhile the family member is offered counseling. Trust me I know what I'm talking about here. The system is badly broken ask any Guard or GP who is dealing with this day in day out.

I understand totally, but you cant just assume that people have mental health problems because they are on drugs. I know the drugs make them act differently to the person they are, or the person you know. However, you cant just go around locking up drug addicts, its not a solution to their problems. I do know thats difficult for family members in particular, but addiction is different to mental health. until the addict gets the addiction under control, then afterwards, if there are mental health issues, they can be dealt with seperately.
totally off topic I know! sorry.

Farmer Ed · 12-06-2017 11:58PM

bubblypop wrote: »

I understand totally, but you cant just assume that people have mental health problems because they are on drugs. I know the drugs make them act differently to the person they are, or the person you know. However, you cant just go around locking up drug addicts, its not a solution to their problems. I do know thats difficult for family members in particular, but addiction is different to mental health. until the addict gets the addiction under control, then afterwards, if there are mental health issues, they can be dealt with seperately.
totally off topic I know! sorry.

Very often the two go together. But under the current law no matter how mentally ill a person is, it is next to impossible to get them sanctioned. That's a fact. As for it not being acceptable to go locking people with drug addictions up? Unfortunately our prisons are full of them and our courts can't deal with the volume of them they are dishing out criminal records to every day of the week.

Captain Obvious · 13-06-2017 12:29AM

bubblypop wrote: »

I dont think anyone believes that sectioning a mentally ill person that needs it is against their human rights. Posters have an issue with this case because the girl in question was suicidal as a result of her pregnancy & the psychiatrist sectioned her, without getting other medical opinions.

That's the whole point of a section though. The first doctor makes the decision to involuntarily admit because to delay it would, in their opinion, leave the patient at risk of harm. If they did not then the patient could be dead by the time they got some other opinions.

13-06-2017 12:33AM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's the whole point of a section though. The first doctor makes the decision to involuntarily admit because to delay it would, in their opinion, leave the patient at risk of harm. If they did not then the patient could be dead by the time they got some other opinions.

but the whole point of the Protection of life in pregnancy whatever legislation, is that suicide is a reason for termination

koumi · 13-06-2017 12:47AM

The only person I've ever known to be sectioned was a girl (read, 24 year old woman) whose mother was a psychiatric nurse who would "incarcerate" her every other weekend, specifically when the mother had night shift duties to attend to. I thought and still think, it is the most horrific abuse of the system especially given the profession of her mother and the reasons why she was suicidal in the first instance. childhood abuse by her mothers step father, a man who had also abused her mother..the same psychiatric nurse who now locked up her daughter. It's easier to lock people up than to deal with the consequences.

Muir · 13-06-2017 01:15AM

Not sure if this has been posted already but it's an article from 2013 about involuntary admission procedures for psychiatric hospitals in relation to a suicidal pregnant woman. Basically, being suicidal is not a mental disorder, and you can only be sectioned if you have a mental disorder.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/involuntary-admission-procedures-for-psychiatric-hospitals-poorly-understood-1.1390466

Also, I see a few people saying you can't be sectioned if you're a drug addict. You can't be sectioned because you are a drug addict, you can be sectioned if you are a drug addict who has a mental disorder that warrants involuntary hospital admission.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-06-2017 03:02AM

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.

But right here we have a threat to the mother's life, and abortion was denied.

Yet again, mental illness is not regarded as "real illness", not taken seriously, regarded as something to be gotten over with hugs and cups of tea. Bollocks.

Clearly you have little knowledge of the law, but still I'd like to ask you how within a nine-month pregnancy you can charge, try, convict, and resolve all possible appeals? It's not possible. You know this, which is why you claim to support it.

"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"

When a man has to bear a pregnancy, get back to me. That's an idiotic argument to be frank.

Hotblack Desiato · 13-06-2017 03:02AM

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.

You know very well that nobody born since 1965 has had a real choice on Ireland's abotion laws. Since 1983 we have been only offered the 'choice' of making abortion laws even more restrictive. On every occasion since 1983, the Irish electorate have chosen to not make Irish abortion law more restrictive.

If you want to paint Irish language activists as Catholo-fascists, you are going the right way about it. I called you out on this before and you still don't have the wit to up your game.

wonderfullife · 13-06-2017 04:26AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But right here we have a threat to the mother's life, and abortion was denied.

None of us know enough about the particulars of this case but it's possible that first doctor, in good faith, viewed the bigger threat to the mother's life was by granting the abortion.

In the UK the law is very clear - two doctors must sign off on it. The legal basis for doing so is that continuing with the pregnancy would be more harmful to physical and mental health than aborting the pregnancy.

In the vast majority of cases, abortions are granted.

There are rare cases, even in the UK, where a woman is denied a legal abortion on the grounds that medical professionals make a determination that the greater risk to the mother's life is in having the abortion.

Dealing with suicidal ideation and a crisis pregnancy is an extremely tough thing for doctors and psychiatrists. They have to weigh up what the greater risk is. In most cases, they will conclude continuing with the pregnancy is the greater risk and sign off on a legal abortion.

But we have to respect good-faith determinations for denying an abortion too, if they conclude otherwise. They know their patients better than we do.

Farmer Ed · 13-06-2017 06:50AM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

That's the whole point of a section though. The first doctor makes the decision to involuntarily admit because to delay it would, in their opinion, leave the patient at risk of harm. If they did not then the patient could be dead by the time they got some other opinions.

Except if someone is using drugs they can't be sanctioned. Apparently we are defending that persons basic human rights by allowing them to go and kill themselves. Problem is 90% of people with mental illness also have drug and alcohol addictions. So in effect we are failing to protect them with our political correctness.

Daisy78 · 13-06-2017 07:24AM

Jim Bob Scratcher wrote: »

Why didn't she just go across the pond ?

Why should she have to.

Anita Blow · 13-06-2017 07:25AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

But right here we have a threat to the mother's life, and abortion was denied.

The PODP Act doesn't just say abortion is granted if a woman is suicidal due to her pregnancy. It states she must be suicidal and termination of the pregnancy must be the only treatment option to cure her. The psychiatrist found in good Faith that the problems she voiced could be managed through other methods (drugs, counselling etc).

Indeed the 2nd psychiatrist found she was no longer suicidal and her depression was well managed so at no point would she have met the criteria for a termination.

Big Bag of Chips · 13-06-2017 08:26AM

Jamiekelly wrote: »

I'm wondering why those who advocate "abortion is murder" don't advocate miscarriage being manslaughter under their own definition of fetuses having the same right to life as others.

What are you talking about?

A "right to life" doesn't mean you're going to live forever. So why are families all over the country not charged with manslaughter every time a family member dies of natural causes?

Do you know how or why miscarriages happen? In your infinite wisdom, could you please explain to the thousands of women who have miscarriages or still births every single year what they should be doing differently to avoid those situations? Because clearly if they "neglect their child to death", then obviously there is a way of avoiding that, and it's something you know that all those women and the medical professionals haven't discovered yet.

So.... Tell us. We're all ears.

Samaris · 13-06-2017 08:41AM

While I totally agree, BBOC, the OP wasn't advocating it to be fair to him. He was asking why the hardline pro-lifers don't have an answer to that question if they are so determined that a foetus is a living human being with full human rights - if that -is- the case, why do they not advocate for (say) at least an investigation into all miscarriages, same as in all accidental or unexplained deaths in people who have been born. Obviously that would be crazy (and deeply insulting, hurtful and cruel. And stupid), but it's the extreme end of the foetuses-are-full-people argument.

lawred2 · 13-06-2017 08:42AM

Jamiekelly wrote: »

If abortion is murder then doesn't that make a miscarriage manslaughter? After all, if you believe the foetus in the womb deserves the same rights as a child outside of it then surely you should be getting the placards out for the women who neglected their child to death while they were in the womb.

Even if you didn't want to push for manslaughter charges you should still believe that at the very least its child neglect. But something tells me that issue would be far to complex and harrowing to even try and debate.

I've mentioned this argument to pro life people before and I still haven't gotten a straight answer, most boil it down to "individual cases and not a one size fits all solution." Which is laughable considering that's exactly what they want when it comes to abortion itself....

Ah lad... There is no way you have mentioned this 'argument' to anyone. It's so incredibly stupid and insulting that you'd have been more likely to get a pop in the nose than a 'straight answer'..

In fact maybe a pop in the nose would be best straight answer.

Have a word with yourself.

I'm pro choice by the way.

As for the OP.. More of the same in this Dickensian home for muddled morals and practices.

Big Bag of Chips · 13-06-2017 08:46AM

In that case Samaria, why is there not a post mortem done on every single person who dies and an investigation into their death. Because sometimes people die. For various, non malicious reasons. There is no logic behind his argument, and if indeed he has mentioned it to pro-life people then I'm sure their lack of answer was down to looking at him funny, trying to figure out if he was actually serious.

I would imagine many pro-life people themselves have had miscarriages.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 09:05AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The posters who use the term foetus in the context of the 8th amendment are mixing terminology in a futile attempt to distance themselves from the fact that what everyone is referring to here is human life.

No they are not trying to distance themselves from any such thing. They are trying to DISTINGUISH between many different meanings and contexts of the phrase "Human Life" because such a phrase can mean different things in different contexts.

And many people AGAINST abortion conflate those different meanings and contexts in order to impute early stage fetueses with late stage attributes that they hope will emotionally cajole people into being against abortion.

They find terms that people are emotive about like "Human life" and "baby" and so forth and try to use them, regardless of context, in order to construct arguments of emotion where arguments from intellect have failed to appear.

Outlaw Pete · 13-06-2017 09:30AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No they are not trying to distance themselves from any such thing. They are trying to DISTINGUISH between many different meanings and contexts of the phrase "Human Life" because such a phrase can mean different things in different contexts.

It can, yeah...... but the topic is abortion and so when people speak of 'human life' they are referring to a human being's life and that you post the above just proves the user's point tbf......... you will no doubt start waffling about how human skin and human snot is also "human life" next.... as is your want.

And many people AGAINST abortion conflate those different meanings and contexts in order to impute early stage fetueses with late stage attributes that they hope will emotionally cajole people into being against abortion.

They find terms that people are emotive about like "Human life" and "baby" and so forth and try to use them, regardless of context, in order to construct arguments of emotion where arguments from intellect have failed to appear.

And those with staunch pro-choice views don't do the opposite, no? The terms "bunch of cells" and "blob of biological matter" are just them attempting to stick to scientifically appropriate terminology I suppose? Yeah, butter wouldn't melt.

Lollipops23 · 13-06-2017 09:50AM

If a foetus is considered a person by law, why do we not have death certs issued for miscarriages?

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 13-06-2017 09:58AM

Wheeliebin30 wrote: »

Jesus if this is an argument for the pro side I will never be pro life.

What a disgusting insensitive comment.

He's actually arguing against the pro life movement.

....... · 13-06-2017 09:59AM

This post has been deleted.

Jamiekelly · 13-06-2017 10:05AM

lawred2 wrote: »

Ah lad... There is no way you have mentioned this 'argument' to anyone. It's so incredibly stupid and insulting that you'd have been more likely to get a pop in the nose than a 'straight answer'..

In fact maybe a pop in the nose would be best straight answer.

Have a word with yourself.

I'm pro choice by the way.

As for the OP.. More of the same in this Dickensian home for muddled morals and practices.

Clearly your morals are so beyond reproach when your threatening someone over the internet. Would you like me to PM you my address and you can say that to my face?

super_furry · 13-06-2017 10:09AM

Locking up a child to try and force her to give birth when she doesn't want to sounds like something straight out of Victorian Britain. The doctor who signed the order to lock her up needs to be investigated and we need a referendum on the 8th Amendment as soon as is possible.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 10:11AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No they are not trying to distance themselves from any such thing. They are trying to DISTINGUISH between many different meanings and contexts of the phrase "Human Life" because such a phrase can mean different things in different contexts.

You should point them in the direction of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 then, where it's perfectly clear in a legal context what terminology is used, because that's the only terminology would be relevant with regard to legislating for abortion in Ireland, and in Irish law, the term used is 'the unborn', which is defined as -

"unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman;

It's really not that difficult as you're trying to make out for people to understand.

And many people AGAINST abortion conflate those different meanings and contexts in order to impute early stage fetueses with late stage attributes that they hope will emotionally cajole people into being against abortion.

Which is why I said to that poster that the terms can be used interchangeably, it's not like anyone is forcing you to use the term 'the unborn' when you're never likely to limit the scope of your arguments to arguing within the context of the Irish legal system.

They're perfectly entitled to do it, as are you, and as I suggested earlier - people aren't as stupid as some people need them to be.

They find terms that people are emotive about like "Human life" and "baby" and so forth and try to use them, regardless of context, in order to construct arguments of emotion where arguments from intellect have failed to appear.

In the same way as you don't have to restrict yourself to arguments from emotion, people don't have to restrict themselves to the parameters of your poorly constructed arguments either. I won't call your arguments intellectual because that would be imputing them with attributes that they just don't have.

Whether it pleases you or not, abortion is an emotive issue for most people, and that's why other people don't regard and value your poorly constructed arguments as much as you think they should.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 10:18AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It can, yeah...... but the topic is abortion and so when people speak of 'human life' they are referring to a human being's life and that you post the above just proves the user's point tbf

Not really no. There is the context of "human life" as in a piece of biology that is p art of the human life cycle. A fetus for example. Then there is "human life" in terms of the conscious agent with rights and desires and experience and hopes and dreams and wants and desires. You and I for example. And the two are massively different.

When people are contriving to use words like "baby" and "Human life" in the context of abortion they often do so in the hope that some of the attributes of the latter, will color the emotive response of people to the former.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

......... you will no doubt start waffling about how human skin and human snot is also "human life" next.... as is your want.

Yet the waffling is all yours. It might be better to wait to hear what I will say, rather than presume to guess at it so poorly. Not that I have not explained ALL of this to you multiples times before, though you appear to wish to pretend otherwise.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And those with staunch pro-choice views don't do the opposite, no? The terms "bunch of cells" and "blob of biological matter" are just them attempting to stick to scientifically appropriate terminology I suppose? Yeah, butter wouldn't melt.

There is a huge different between calling a spade a spade, and calling it something else. So no, I do not see it as "doing the opposite". When talking about an undifferentiated blob of cells I will call it an undifferentiated blob of cells because that IS WHAT IT IS. That is NOT in any way comparable to calling an undifferentiated blob of cells a "Baby" in the hope that people will have an emotive response to the word "baby" and impute attribute that are not there.

Jamiekelly · 13-06-2017 10:23AM

Lollipops23 wrote: »

If a foetus is considered a person by law, why do we not have death certs issued for miscarriages?

Be very careful. I was essentially asking the same thing at the start of this thread and I'm getting threats over it. Apparently I'm close to being sub-human now for trying to find consistency in the right to life viewpoint.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 10:32AM

Jamiekelly wrote: »

Be very careful. I was essentially asking the same thing at the start of this thread and I'm getting threats over it. Apparently I'm close to being sub-human now for trying to find consistency in the right to life viewpoint.

Ahh you weren't Jamie, but I think the reason people are hauling you over the coals for it is because they missed the point you were trying to make.

I got the point you were trying to make, but you really can't tell people that because they argue for one thing, they should also argue for something completely different which you managed to tie together.

I genuinely don't think you personally think that abortion and miscarriage are equatable in those terms, but you're trying to argue that people should be consistent by equating two completely different concepts. That's not consistency.

Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

Comments