Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

seamus · 13-06-2017 10:36AM

Anita Blow wrote: »

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.

Well, she potentially would have met the criteria for a termination on her first appointment, since it's possible/likely that the admission under the mental health act was erroneous. Being suicidal or depressed doesn't automatically mean someone is suffering from a mental health disorder in the legal or medical sense.

We don't actually know if this girl subsequently obtained an abortion under the POLDPA as that's outside the scope of the report.

Ultimately what we've seen here is a massive flaw in the mental health act which apparently allows for an individual to be forcibly detained on the word of a single psychologist. We should be beefing that up to a minimum of two independent opinions from suitably qualified individuals.

PressRun · 13-06-2017 10:36AM

super_furry wrote: »

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.

Again, as I've said, let's get a name of where this psychiatrist works. Confirming that would go a long way to knowing what exactly the reasoning behind this was.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 10:43AM

super_furry wrote: »

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.

This is exactly the kind of knee-jerk reaction the Irish Times was hoping for.

PressRun wrote: »

Again, as I've said, let's get a name of where this psychiatrist works. Confirming that would go a long way to knowing what exactly the reasoning behind this was.

Why do you think you should be entitled to know the identity of the psychiatrist?

That's not to mention the fact that in cases like this, their identities are not disclosed in order to protect the identity of the child.

Outlaw Pete · 13-06-2017 10:45AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They can in California:

Assault Causing Miscarriage Can Be Murder Case

SAN FRANCISCO — In a landmark ruling, the California Supreme Court held Monday that a person can be convicted of murder for causing the death of a fetus that could have been legally aborted.

The 6-to-1 decision will allow prosecutors to charge a defendant with murder for causing a pregnant woman to miscarry, even if her fetus had been only seven to eight weeks old and incapable of surviving outside her womb.

Although the case will not directly affect abortion rights, which are protected by constitutional privacy guarantees, activists on both sides of the abortion debate watched it closely because it posed the moral issue of when life begins.

The court's decision gives California arguably the toughest fetal murder law in the nation. It means that a robber could be sentenced to death if in the course of his crime he injured a pregnant woman and caused her to miscarry, even if he was unaware that the woman was pregnant.

Not far off it in the UK either as the charge there is 'Child Destruction':

Man jailed for life for killing unborn son in attack on ex-girlfriend

Kevin Wilson was found guilty of child destruction and causing grievous bodily harm to Malorie Bantala.

The teaching assistant who brutally attacked his heavily pregnant ex-girlfriend in Peckham, killing his unborn son by repeatedly stamping on her stomach, has been jailed for life.

Kevin Wilson, 21, pounced on his former partner outside her home in south London on 15 June last year after she refused to have an abortion. In a vicious assault, he repeatedly stamped on and kicked her stomach after pushing her to the ground.

Malorie Bantala, a Marks & Spencer employee, had been buying decorations for her baby shower and was returning home when Wilson and a 17-year-old accomplice, both disguised in crash helmets, emerged from bushes and attacked her.

Judge Mark Lucraft QC sentenced Wilson to life and ordered him to serve 16 years, saying this was a “rare case” in which a life sentence was necessary. His accomplice, Tafari Grant, was sentenced to 10 years in custody with a further four on licence.

“This was a cowardly, vile and callous attack,” the judge told them. “The assault was premeditated and involved planning, it was sustained and involved repeated kicks and stamps to the midriff.

“There were two victims of the attack, a young pregnant woman and her unborn child. You, Wilson, were the father of the unborn child and as such had a responsibility to ensure the continued wellbeing of mother and baby.”

During the trial the jury heard how family and neighbours had rushed to help Bantala as she lay curled up in the street with life-threatening injuries, unable to feel her baby moving inside her. When emergency services arrived, she told police her unborn child’s father was responsible, saying: “He doesn’t want the baby.”

After the attack Bantala was rushed to King’s College hospital but her unborn baby boy could not be saved and was stillborn by emergency C-section.

She needed life-saving surgery to control catastrophic bleeding from a major artery and suffered fractures to her right hand as she tried to shield her stomach from her attackers.

Bantala, who was in court to witness the sentencing, said in a victim impact statement she hated being referred to as the victim, as the real victim was her son Joel.

She wrote: “Joel never got to meet me properly, never know how much I love him. I will never get to see him smile, watch him get his first tooth or to take his first steps.

“These are only some of the things that I envisioned in my life with Joel, and that was taken away from me in a split second. The moment Joel died inside me I lost everything, literally. Life as I knew it no longer made sense.”

She also recounted the trauma of her baby’s funeral: “The thought of burying him was unbearable and when I had to do it that was the worst day of my life.”

Big Bag of Chips · 13-06-2017 10:48AM

I don't believe Jamiekelly's argument was as clever as some people are trying really hard to give him credit for.

Jamiekelly wrote: »

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.

Seriously, how anybody can think that this is a reasonable argument is beyond me. There is no mention of demonstrating for the loss of life of a child by miscarriage. He is specifically questioning why "the women who neglect their child to death in the womb" aren't be demonstrated against. His argument is nothing to do with concern about the lost life and everything to do with demonising a woman who loses a baby through no fault of her own.

You still haven't explained how thousands of women can avoid "neglecting their child to death", Jamiekelly.

They can avoid "murdering" an unborn by not having an abortion. How can they avoid a miscarriage?

13-06-2017 10:48AM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

They can in California:

Not far off it in the UK either as the charge there is 'Child Destruction':

that's not Ireland though.
If you want the same law here, I have no problem with that, so long as we get their abortion laws also.

AudreyHepburn · 13-06-2017 10:59AM

Leaving aside the moral outrage and histrionics, is it not standard procedure to section some-one who, regardless of the reason, presents as suicidal?

Some-how I don't believe it was done purely because she wants an abortion. I imagine it has more to do with what she might do if she doesn't get one.

I don't honestly see what other choice the Psychiatrist had.

Less hysterics and more logical thinking are called for here I think.

PressRun · 13-06-2017 11:02AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why do you think you should be entitled to know the identity of the psychiatrist?

That's not to mention the fact that in cases like this, their identities are not disclosed in order to protect the identity of the child.

Where do they work is what I want to know. There are people in this country giving medical advice to people in crisis pregnancies who are not neutral. I can think of a couple of places. If we know who the psychiatrist was working on behalf of, it would go a long way to knowing the reason behind the sectioning, though the situation stinks to high heaven anyway even without that.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 11:09AM

PressRun wrote: »

Where do they work is what I want to know. There are people in this country giving medical advice to people in crisis pregnancies who are not neutral. I can think of a couple of places. If we know who the psychiatrist was working on behalf of, it would go a long way to knowing the reason behind the sectioning, though the situation stinks to high heaven anyway even without that.

The situation only stinks to high heaven to you because you're making assumptions in the absence of facts which could compromise the child's identity.

Calling for any identifying factors in this case to be made public, stinks of a lynch mob mentality.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 11:09AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You should point them in the direction of the

If you wish to point people there then by all means do, but you do not get to dictate what I "should" do thanks. All I am doing is explaining why people make the distinctions they do, and why quite often their reasons are nothing like the ones you simply invented for them.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

that's the only terminology would be relevant with regard to legislating for abortion in Ireland

Then take it up with someone who is discussing legislation, which I was not. I was talking SOLELY about people using a term "fetus" and how they are not doing so to "distance themselves from human life".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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

I made out no such thing, you just made that up. At no point did I say, imply, or suggest anything was "difficult" at all. Keep your narratives out of my mouth thanks.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Which is why I said to that poster that the terms can be used interchangeably

Of course they can, which is why we need to be hyper sensitive to what they are doing WHILE they do that. In order to assure ourselves that they are not slipping nonsense implications in under the radar by the use, or misuse, of terminology that they otherwise can not establish through reason and argument.

Which is why I say there is a lot more going on by the terms people choose than your narrative of them merely trying to distance themselves from "Human life".

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Oh great, another of your posts where you beef out a lack of any content by merely informing us of what people are entitled to, as if anyone questioned it in the first place when they actually did not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

You have not shown, on this thread or any other on this subject, that my arguments are indeed "poorly constructed". You merely assert them to be so and then run away.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I won't call your arguments intellectual because that would be imputing them with attributes that they just don't have.

I would be more interested in what you can ESTABLISH arguments to be, rather than what labels you can fling at them without any substance at all. Because flinging labels at arguments, without addressing the content of the arguments, means the lack of intellect and content and construct is yours. Not mine.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Whether it pleases you or not, abortion is an emotive issue for most people

Exactly. Which is why we should not exacerbate that by using emotive terms in place of actual arguments or.... like you do..... pretend people are using ACCURATE terms for reasons other than they actually are.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

, and that's why other people don't regard and value your poorly constructed arguments as much as you think they should.

Not poorly constructed at all. That is just your cop out dodge from actually replying to them. It is quite clearly your inability to address them, rebut them or deal with them........ choosing instead to simply fling a label at them and then run away............. that means the poor construct and poor content is your problem and not mine.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

By all means do what he can not then, and tell us what point he was trying to make by suggesting miscarriage is in ANY way related to "neglect". Lets see if you flap around explaining that one any less than he has.

A Neurotic · 13-06-2017 11:11AM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Leaving aside the moral outrage and histrionics, is it not standard procedure to section some-one who, regardless of the reason, presents as suicidal?

Absolutely not. To be sectioned under the Mental Health Act, you need to have a diagnosed mental disorder.

Being suicidal, of itself, is not a mental disorder.

Flex · 13-06-2017 11:17AM

I echo the sentiments of others in that I think its important to get a better understanding of why the first psychiatrist chose to section her saying an abortion "wasn't the solution". If it turns out that it was because the psychiatrist, for their own personal views, was against allowing this girl to have a choice on the matter then it shows a huge flaw in the present laws. Whether or not women who need to have an abortion get to get one will be down entirely to whether the psychiatrist evaluating them is pro or anti choice.

Ideally there would be a referendum on the issue, but will never happen. I'm pro-choice and Id appreciate a referendum giving people a choice and the party who put it forward would get a lot of support and credit from me in the short term, however I wouldn't be wedded to that party for life. The pro-life people, however, would likely boycott said party for life and every parish up and down the country would condemn them from the pulpits for generations.

It would basically be annihilation for any party who gave the people of the country a choice on abortion.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 11:21AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you wish to point people there then by all means do, but you do not get to dictate what I "should" do thanks.

...

Then take it up with someone who is discussing legislation, which I was not.

I will do, cheers for the suggestion, saves me wasting an awful lot of time dissecting irrelevant waffle.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 11:26AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I will do, cheers for the suggestion, saves me wasting an awful lot of time dissecting irrelevant waffle.

Same thing again then, merely flinging a label at what you can not address, then running away.

AGAIN though the "waffle" was the suggestion that people are using the terms they do, in order to "distance them-self" from it being a "Human life".

This is a position you can not defend so when called on it you merely call such responses "irrelevant waffle" and then run for the hills. Typical for your MO alas.

But the fact remains that people use the terms they do quite often because they are ACCURATE and they refer to EXACTLY what the entity is, without any implied allocation of attributes it does not have.

The VAST majority, near totality, of choice based abortions happen in or before week 12. Calling it a "fetus" at that stage is not an attempt to "distance themselves" from anything like your fantasy informs you. Rather they are calling it EXACTLY what it is, in a way that does not pull on the emotional strings of calling it something much more than it is.

So build a bridge and deal with that. People use their words, often carefully, for many reasons OTHER than the one you merely invented on their behalf before running away from any critique of your fantasy.

Akrasia · 13-06-2017 11:27AM

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.

In fairness Jamie, you were very hamfisted in the way you presented your argument and you should take it as a learning opportunity to not conflate miscarriage with neglect or manslaughter.

Instead of accusing women of manslaughter, a better argument is that a consistent pro-life world view would be to treat foetal death the same way we treat infant death or any sudden and unexplained death. Usually there is an inquest to determine the cause of death when someone dies suddenly.

If a foetus is determined to be a person with equal rights as a fully developed and born person, then the authorities should treat their sudden and unexplained death the same way as they treat other deaths.

The reason for this argument is to demonstrate that there is a qualitative difference between a miscarriage or abortion and the death of an infant child or adult.

Anyone who called for inquests into miscarriages would be causing undue suffering an distress onto the already distraught couple who have lost their wanted pregnancy.

Zubeneschamali · 13-06-2017 11:29AM

I think the case proves that anyone who would talk to an Irish psychiatrist about wanting an abortion under the Act is mad.

super_furry · 13-06-2017 11:43AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I think the case proves that anyone who would talk to an Irish psychiatrist about wanting an abortion under the Act is mad.

This is the crux of it. Women are going to be scared to go to doctors and seek medical and psychological advice now, not knowing if they can trust the person who's supposed to be helping them, to lock them up or not.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 11:45AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Same thing again then, merely flinging a label at what you can not address, then running away.

AGAIN though the "waffle" was the suggestion that people are using the terms they do, in order to "distance them-self" from it being a "Human life".

This is a position you can not defend so when called on it you merely call such responses "irrelevant waffle" and then run for the hills. Typical for your MO alas.

But the fact remains that people use the terms they do quite often because they are ACCURATE and they refer to EXACTLY what the entity is, without any implied allocation of attributes it does not have.

The VAST majority, near totality, of choice based abortions happen in or before week 12. Calling it a "fetus" at that stage is not an attempt to "distance themselves" from anything like your fantasy informs you. Rather they are calling it EXACTLY what it is, in a way that does not pull on the emotional strings of calling it something much more than it is.

So build a bridge and deal with that. People use their words, often carefully, for many reasons OTHER than the one you merely invented on their behalf before running away from any critique of your fantasy.

It was an accurate description of your post, which I read through and decided to take your suggestion on board that I instead find someone who was interested in discussing the legislation as you are not.

We are agreed that people use the terms they often do because they are accurate, and using the term 'the unborn' is far more accurate in the context of the 8th amendment where the term 'foetus' is wholly inaccurate.

Now while you might suggest I build a bridge, it was in fact you who decided you would have a go at picking apart my post and then what you might think is accurately referring to me as 'running away', it's actually far more accurate from my perspective to say I simply can't be arsed entertaining your nonsense which is just painful, uninteresting and adds nothing to the discussion.

xckjoo · 13-06-2017 11:49AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

I got his point too but his argument was ill conceived and lacking any basis in reality.

A better argument would have been to point out the hypocrisy in the people who argue so veraciously against abortion but then give little thought or care for those who do suffer miscarriage.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 11:51AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was an accurate description of your post

None of your descriptions of my posts or arguments have been accurate. They are cop out descriptions used to cover you dodging and dealing with what I write. You just screech "irrelevant" or "poor" at something and run away, without ever establishing what is wrong with the arguments presented.

Which just makes YOUR calling other peoples arguments poor or lacking in intellect all the more comical.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We are agreed that people use the terms they often do because they are accurate

Great. So as I said your narrative of "a futile attempt to distance themselves from the fact that what everyone is referring to here is human life." is simply a load of tosh you wholesale invented on their behalf.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now while you might suggest I build a bridge, it was in fact you who decided you would have a go at picking apart my post

Sure, because I, unlike you, am happy to point out where peoples arguments fail or are wrong, and why. I do not simply screech a label at those arguments and run away without remotely dealing with their content. What kind of person does that.... oh yes thats right.... you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I simply can't be arsed entertaining your nonsense which is just painful, uninteresting and adds nothing to the discussion.

And there again, you merely screech a label (in this case "nonsense") and run away without ever establishing it to be so. Weak. Really weak.

PressRun · 13-06-2017 11:59AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The situation only stinks to high heaven to you because you're making assumptions in the absence of facts which could compromise the child's identity.

Calling for any identifying factors in this case to be made public, stinks of a lynch mob mentality.

There are medical professionals out there who are not neutral on this issue and women should know that before they seek medical advice from them. That is not having a lynch mentality, it's about transparency. From what we understand here, this girl and her mother we're under the impression she was going for an abortion and then discovered she was being sectioned. Why did they think she was going for an abortion? Who told her that if it wasn't going to happen? Knowing what hospital this happened in or who she sought out for this advice would go a long way to explaining a few things.

And I don't think you care a jot about the girl's identity. It's more about the fact that you're worried it'll be discovered the psychiatrist isn't as above board as you like to think.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 12:02PM

xckjoo wrote: »

I got his point too but his argument was ill conceived and lacking any basis in reality.

A better argument would have been to point out the hypocrisy in the people who argue so veraciously against abortion but then give little thought or care for those who do suffer miscarriage.

I genuinely don't see how that argument is any better given that the two concepts are simply unrelated, so there's no hypocrisy there either.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 12:07PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I genuinely don't see how that argument is any better

You can not see how THAT argument is better than one predicated on the claim that mis-carriages are due to neglect? Seriously? I would say ANY argument around that issue would be MONUMENTALLY improved by leaving out that little doozey of a nonsense.

kylith · 13-06-2017 12:10PM

Farmer Ed wrote: »

Problem is 90% of people with mental illness also have drug and alcohol addictions.

No they don't. They really, really don't.

Lollipops23 wrote: »

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

And why isn't child support paid from conception?

The simple answer is that they're not considered people in law, even by the RCC (when it suits them). So why do they have the same (or arguably more) rights than an extant woman?

xckjoo · 13-06-2017 12:10PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I genuinely don't see how that argument is any better given that the two concepts are simply unrelated, so there's no hypocrisy there either.

The argument being the fetus is a person. If abortion is murder then surely some weight has to be given to the loss of life from miscarriage.

There was a whole HSE report about this last year, I'm not pulling it out of my ass.

super_furry · 13-06-2017 12:12PM

Timely statement from the UN this morning - http://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-ireland-4-3441468-Jun2017/?utm_source=twitter_self

"THE UN HUMAN Rights Committee has found that Ireland’s law prohibiting and criminalising abortion has violated the human rights of a woman.

"The committee has ordered Ireland to reform its restrictive abortion laws following the decision, which is the second time in a year that legislation has been deemed to violate a woman’s human rights."

ohnonotgmail · 13-06-2017 12:12PM

xckjoo wrote: »

The argument being the fetus is a person. If abortion is murder then surely some weight has to be given to the loss of life from miscarriage.

There was a whole HSE report about this last year, I'm not pulling it out of my ass.

that comparison is nonsense. abortion is a deliberate act. a miscarriage isnt.

xckjoo · 13-06-2017 12:17PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that comparison is nonsense. abortion is a deliberate act. a miscarriage isnt.

I didn't say it was deliberate. Nor did I say that they were equatable. I said that the status of the fetus as a living this is not given equal consideration in these vastly difference circumstances.

....... · 13-06-2017 12:20PM

This post has been deleted.

xckjoo · 13-06-2017 12:21PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No it isn't. None of that sentence is "logically consistent"

Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

Comments