nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

jaja321

This story has really upset me today. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/girl-sectioned-after-psychiatrist-ruled-out-abortion-1.3116111. I’m 8 months pregnant and despite having had a relatively ‘easy’ pregnancy with no complications, I know that to go through with a pregnancy, you really need to want it.

Where is the sense in trying to make this young girl continue with her pregnancy when she is clearly distraught about it? And then to have her sectioned? What kind of barbaric country is this? I don’t know what happened to her once she was no longer detained, but I would assume she probably went to England to have an abortion (she clearly had the support of her mother).

So what did we achieve here? Just a possibly delayed abortion and a very distraught young girl.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Captain Obvious

bubblypop wrote: »

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

No, if the pregnancy is causing the suicidal thoughts then aborting the pregnancy may be justified. Simply being suicidal isn't grounds in itself, it has to be linked to the pregnancy.

Farmer Ed wrote: »

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.

People on drugs can be sectioned. Doctors are just more cautious about doing so because the effects of the drugs make it difficult to assess their general mental state.

nozzferrahhtoo

xckjoo wrote: »

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.

It is an unfortunate attribute of my conversations with anti-choice campaigners and debaters that they seem to contrive to be vague as possible about the word "alive" and when it is important, why it is important, and how it is important.

I hear all too often the line that it is "alive" from conception. Presented not as part of the argument but AS the argument. They seem to think that is the entire argument in itself. It is "alive" therefore abortion bad.

What i notice however is the majority of these people have no moral considerations of note towards the life of many other things "Alive" in our world. Plants, insects, the meat on their dinner plate. The fact these things were "alive" and it does not matter to them shows me that there is something more at play than merely being "alive" and clearly, as you say, things being "alive" are "not given equal consideration" in "different circumstances."

And when people use a term in some contexts as important, but not in others, and are ENTIRELY unable to adumbrate the reasoning behind the difference............ one is left simply with the assumption they are choosing their conclusions first, and fitting their arguments (and linguistics) to it second.

Which means they can simply not argue their anti abortion case at any intellectual level at all. They merely hope the emotive nature of something being "alive" will do for them, what they can not do for themselves. For shame.

osarusan

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It isn't consistent at all.

I don't know where this argument is coming from, but it doesn't make any sense for the vast majority of instances of miscarriage.

One eyed Jack

PressRun wrote: »

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.

Ok, when you first mentioned 'people' giving medical advice on this issue who are not neutral, I thought you were talking about advocacy organisations where women experiencing a crisis pregnancy would go for support, and it came to mind a few women who have been to certain family planning organisations for support who felt they were being pushed into having an abortion... but obviously you're not talking about those people, you're talking about medical professionals.

Medical professionals are held accountable for their conduct and there are numerous checks and balances in place to ensure that women and in this case a child receives the care that they believe is appropriate. I personally don't think they need to answer to the public for their privately held opinions, no matter where they stand on the issue of mental health or abortion. They are already answerable to professional bodies which monitor their professional conduct.

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.

As I said already, I don't know why they thought they were going for an abortion, but there's no evidence to suggest that anyone actually told them they were either. Knowing which adolescent psychiatrist she was being treated by outside of Dublin wouldn't in any way have led to the conclusion that it was the psychiatrist who told her this, but some people would assume that to have been the case and would target the psychiatrist accordingly. That's less about transparency, and more about lynch mob mentality IMO.

To be perfectly blunt, and without meaning to sound callous, but patient confidentiality is more important in these cases than your need to know.

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.

Well you would think that given that anyone who contradicts your perception that the whole thing stinks clearly must not care as much as you do. There wouldn't be much point in that case in me telling you that you couldn't be more wrong - you're going to believe what you want in the absence of facts anyway.

neonsofa

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.

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.

Or you know just simply using the medical term when discussing a medical procedure. No ulterior motive or deep meaningful explanation. Also many people on the thread have used the terms foetus and baby interchangeably throughout the discussion so the whole "distancing" theory is bull****.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

neonsofa wrote: »

Or you know just simply using the medical term when discussing a medical procedure. No ulterior motive or deep meaningful explanation. Also many people on the thread have used the terms foetus and baby interchangeably throughout the discussion so the whole "distancing" theory is bull****.

Yep, it was a complete fabrication from a user who simply ran away from it when called on it.

I think for some it is a deflection and guilt thing. They know they are contriving to use (or misuse) words in an emotive way so to deflect from that they accuse people using the CORRECT words of having an agenda while doing so.

We see it quite often on forums when someone does X, they try to hide it by essentially accusing everyone ELSE of doing X.

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

Of course, but the point is, if someone believes abortion to be the murder of a person, then they surely believe that a miscarriage is the death of a person.

When a person is killed by the non deliberate actions of another person we investigate if they should be charged with manslaughter.

So to be logically consistent then we should investigate women who suffer miscarriage as it is the death of a person and they might have caused it.

Does this seem a bit mad? Same way abortion = murder seems mad I guess.

But the reason it's ridiculous is because you're assuming that they should be making arguments they're not making.

I don't get the point of that? What's it supposed to achieve? Pointing out that people are inconsistent and base their judgements on the circumstances of each individual case?

Why would that be a surprise to anyone? Isn't that why we have the legal system in place to interpret the law and make judgements and so on that more often than not, appear to be inconsistent.

osarusan

To be fair, this:

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

is quite different from this:

it is logically consistent to consider miscarriage as manslaughter of a person.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

Absolutely not. It does not breach patient confidentiality to know if a medical professional misrepresented the situation to a patient.

The girl and her mother thought they were being referred for abortion services. Instead the girl was being sectioned.

There is no breach of patient confidentiality in knowing how the above came about.

There is, and that's why the details of the case haven't been made public knowledge.

wonderfullife

super_furry wrote: »

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.

You're making ridiculous and unfounded statements. Basically scaremongering.

In this particular incident, what we have is one psychiatrist who was presented with a pregnant patient who expressed suicidal ideation. The psychiatrist made the determination that the child had an underlying mental health disorder.

2 consultant psychiatrists subsequently examined the girl and found her to be suffering from depression but not an underlying acute mental health problem and they discharged her.

I have absolutely no issue with how this all went down. I would MUCH prefer psychiatrists act from an abundance of caution if they feel there is an acute mental health issue than to approach it with the old school philosophy "ah shur you'll be grand".

This thread shouldn't be about pro-abortion or anti-abortion. It shouldn't be about 'Repeal the 8th' folks casting aspersions on the mental health professionals or anti-abortion folks calling it murder.

Sectioning under the Mental Health Act can (and does) save lives. I would much prefer a child, pregnant or not, be incorrectly detained for 24/48 hours than incorrectly not detained and they end up hanging themselves.

AudreyHepburn

A Neurotic wrote: »

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.

Ok fair enough. I still don't believe she was section purely for wanting an abortion though.

She must have been diagnosed with something as you say.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

Or you know just simply using the medical term when discussing a medical procedure. No ulterior motive or deep meaningful explanation.

It's for accuracy apparently, to use medical terminology in a legal context. I don't see what's particularly accurate about that, but I'll still understand what they mean, even when they use nonsense like "blob of cells" bollocks.

Also many people on the thread have used the terms foetus and baby interchangeably throughout the discussion so the whole "distancing" theory is bull****.

That would make the whole "accuracy" argument bullshìt too then, because they're exactly the same thing. As you said above, there may well be no ulterior motive or deep meaninfgful explanation.

It's just as accurate then to describe the foetus as a baby, an unborn child, as many people do. That seems to bother a lot of other people though who claim it is inaccurate. It's unacceptable to them perhaps, but it's not inaccurate.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There is, and that's why the details of the case haven't been made public knowledge.

I don't want to know any of the personal details of this girl or her family but I would like to know how such a breakdown of communication occurred. Mental health services create a lot of fear in people and those in need of help often don't seek it because they don't understand the circumstances that may lead to them being sectioned. I think it would reassure people, especially women who may need seek abortion under POLPA, to know if this is the norm or was it someone messing up in how they dealt with this family.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's for accuracy apparently, to use medical terminology in a legal context. I don't see what's particularly accurate about that, but I'll still understand what they mean, even when they use nonsense like "blob of cells" bollocks.

That would make the whole "accuracy" argument bullshìt too then, because they're exactly the same thing. As you said above, there may well be no ulterior motive or deep meaninfgful explanation.

It's just as accurate then to describe the foetus as a baby, an unborn child, as many people do. That seems to bother a lot of other people though who claim it is inaccurate. It's unacceptable to them perhaps, but it's not inaccurate.

I never said it was for accuracy, some may use it for that purpose, but once again, some are just choosing to use that medical term. No reason-not accuracy, not distancing- just simply using one term over another, or interchangeably with another.
Same way I use phrases like preggers or knocked up to refer to my own pregnancy, I'd use the term pregnant when discussing it with others. I have no ulterior motive, just a choice of words.

seamus

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Ok fair enough. I still don't believe she was section purely for wanting an abortion though.

She must have been diagnosed with something as you say.

If you arrive at any doctor - whether a GP or an A&E - telling them that you're suicidal, you won't get sectioned.

In fact we hear no end of cases of people who've arrived at an A&E seeking help for suicide, only to be told to come back on Monday.

Yet apparently if you're suicidal and pregnant, there is an urgent rush to get you committed. That's the part that stinks about this whole thing. Had she arrived suicidal but not pregnant, would she have been sectioned? I very doubt it, that's not how the Irish health system works.

That's the main thing that stinks about this case; once again the legal rights of the individual (who was sectioned based on a flawed diagnosis) have been steamrolled by the Irish health system apparently just to protect a foetus, and not because it was the right course of action.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's for accuracy apparently, to use medical terminology in a legal context. I don't see what's particularly accurate about that, but I'll still understand what they mean, even when they use nonsense like "blob of cells" bollocks.

The issue is not just accuracy and you know it. The issue was with YOU inventing a narrative for their use of such terms to suit yourself, and then basically running away when called to substantiate your assertions.

Contrary to the impression I may give off, I actually do not care WHAT people call things. If someone wants to call a zygote a "baby" or a "child" then I have no issue with that per se. However it WILL cause me to read what they write very carefully to see if they, intentionally or otherwise, smuggle in things BY their misuse of those words that otherwise should not be there.

This is a learned behavior because I very much have come across anti-choice campaigners who contrive to use words to create emotions in place of making ANY arguments against abortion at all. Quite simply not just most but the ENTIRETY of their anti-choice rhetoric is this use of emotive terms.

So when someone comes out with assertions based on nothing but fantasy that people using ACCURATE terms like "fetus" are doing so with an agenda that you have simply invented out of an orifice not normally associated with communication, but waste disposal, you very much should be pulled up on it.

Because not only are such assertions baseless, they ALSO distract from the people are ARE contriving to misuse terms with an agenda.

Quite simply you had no, and when called on it offered no, basis for the narrative of "a futile attempt to distance themselves from the fact that what everyone is referring to here is human life.". Rather you just flung out a few labels like "waffle" and then simply ran away.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That would make the whole "accuracy" argument bullshìt too then, because they're exactly the same thing.

Not really, but I can only repeat what I JUST wrote above. Which is that there is nothing wrong in and of itself with using inaccurate labels. Nothing at all. But we must simply be sensitive when people do so, to ensure they are not contriving to do so with an agenda...... or that they do not mistakenly erect a narrative that is itself false. I do not, for example, assume that anyone using emotive or inaccurate terms is always contriving to do so.

But when you come in with a COUNTER narrative of your own fantastical invention that people using inaccurate terms are trying to distance themselves from something that is not even there in the first place........ that very much should be called out.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

As you said above, there may well be no ulterior motive or deep meaninfgful explanation.

Quite often there is no, exactly. We are entirely in agreement here. But quite often there is. And we have to take care to do our best to tell the difference. So when people like yourself simply invent generalizations that assume such motives, especially one that is as nonsense as the one you spewed out, this should be combatted. Because such nonsense makes evaluation of ACTUAL cases of "motive / no motive" cloudier.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's just as accurate then to describe the foetus as a baby, an unborn child, as many people do. That seems to bother a lot of other people though who claim it is inaccurate. It's unacceptable to them perhaps, but it's not inaccurate.

Again, despite this being explained oh so many times before, the issue is not with whether the term is accurate or not. The issue is with the people who USE such terms because the emotions we attach to them are being appealed to at times when+where they do not apply in order to cause an emotive reaction against abortion where coherent and cogent intellectual arguments are non-existent.

Many people call the zygote or fetus a "baby" not because they do not care to use accurate terminology..... but because the word "baby" connects with emotive images in the human mind that people against abortion would like to associate with abortion from the outset.

And that needs to be prevented, and we do so by appealing to more accurate terminology when required. Not to distance ourselves from the humanity of the zygote like you simply invented...... but to prevent humanization of an entity before it's due and without basis. There is a CHASM of difference between distancing oneself from what is there...... and resisting the assertion something is there that is, in fact, not.

People using the term "fetus" are often doing the latter, while the first post from you I replied to was accusing them of the former. Yet the two could not be more different. And if the best you can do in response to those facts is screech words like "waffle" and "irrelevant" and run for the hills..... then you only make my point the stronger for me. Ta for that.

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

If you arrive at any doctor - whether a GP or an A&E - telling them that you're suicidal, you won't get sectioned.

In fact we hear no end of cases of people who've arrived at an A&E seeking help for suicide, only to be told to come back on Monday.

Yet apparently if you're suicidal and pregnant, there is an urgent rush to get you committed. That's the part that stinks about this whole thing. Had she arrived suicidal but not pregnant, would she have been sectioned? I very doubt it, that's not how the Irish health system works.

That's the main thing that stinks about this case; once again the legal rights of the individual (who was sectioned based on a flawed diagnosis) have been steamrolled by the Irish health system apparently just to protect a foetus, and not because it was the right course of action.

if she had arrived suicidal but not pregnant i doubt she would even have got as far as seeing a psychiatrist.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

I don't want to know any of the personal details of this girl or her family but I would like to know how such a breakdown of communication occurred. Mental health services create a lot of fear in people and those in need of help often don't seek it because they don't understand the circumstances that may lead to them being sectioned. I think it would reassure people, especially women who may need seek abortion under POLPA, to know if this is the norm or was it someone messing up in how they dealt with this family.

I understand where you're coming from but I just don't see how this case could have any bearing on anyone else's experiences of mental health services in Ireland, let alone anyone seeking an abortion, as each case would be decided on the particulars of each individual case.

wonderfullife

seamus wrote: »

If you arrive at any doctor - whether a GP or an A&E - telling them that you're suicidal, you won't get sectioned.

Incorrect and highly misleading.

You won't get sectioned for the suicidal ideation in itself.

But if a determination is made of an acute mental health problem beyond the suicidal ideation, they can and will section you.

seamus

I think that was implied in my post. Suicidal ideation alone will not get you sectioned.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I just don't see how this case could have any bearing on anyone else's experiences of mental health services in Ireland, let alone anyone seeking an abortion, as each case would be decided on the particulars of each individual case.

In an ideal world your post here would make sense. Alas we do not live in an ideal world, we live in a world where people generally seem to know very little about mental health, it's treatment, or the facilities, services and procedures that exist.

So "big news" stories like this pushed to the front of the media circus WILL in fact color the expectations and impressions of many people.

Young girls who have heard this story on the radio or television, or in the paper, or worse second hand Chinese whisper style from someone who got it from the media........... will alas have this as their ONLY basis for building an expectation of what will happen when they bring their own case forward.

So I think eviltwin's claim that clarity and transparency and explanation, as far as we can without stepping over other moral boundaries like patient confidentiality, is not really too much to ask for and there are genuine reasons for wishing for it.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from but I just don't see how this case could have any bearing on anyone else's experiences of mental health services in Ireland, let alone anyone seeking an abortion, as each case would be decided on the particulars of each individual case.

It's created a lot of fear and worry. No one is looking for identifying information just a bit of reassurance as to how the miscommunication occurred. It would certainly make me think twice about seeking an abortion here especially if I was a vulnerable person.

wonderfullife

seamus wrote: »

I think that was implied in my post. Suicidal ideation alone will not get you sectioned.

Right, so don't mislead people that you won't get sectioned if you present as suicidal.

You might.

It all depends what diagnosis is made of any acute mental health issue. In this particular case, the psychiatrist made a good faith determination of an acute mental health issue with the girl. 2 further opinions disagreed and she was discharged.

We shouldn't be attacking the first opinion. People implying it was made in bad faith due to the psychiatrists personal views are making shameful accusations on a nameless doctor who can't defend himself.

the headbanger

jaja321 wrote: »

This story has really upset me today. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/girl-sectioned-after-psychiatrist-ruled-out-abortion-1.3116111. I’m 8 months pregnant and despite having had a relatively ‘easy’ pregnancy with no complications, I know that to go through with a pregnancy, you really need to want it.

Where is the sense in trying to make this young girl continue with her pregnancy when she is clearly distraught about it? And then to have her sectioned? What kind of barbaric country is this? I don’t know what happened to her once she was no longer detained, but I would assume she probably went to England to have an abortion (she clearly had the support of her mother).

So what did we achieve here? Just a possibly delayed abortion and a very distraught young girl.

Not sure the abortion debate can be reduced to a sound bite like that. Acting responsibly would dictate a more nuanced comment.

the headbanger

the headbanger wrote: »

Not sure the abortion debate can be reduced to a sound bite like that. Acting responsibly would dictate a more nuanced comment.

Although I know you pro-murder zealots would like that.

nozzferrahhtoo

Hehehe always funny when someone makes a comment and sits waiting for some kind of reply. And when none comes they escalate to try and trigger SOMETHING in SOMEONE

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In an ideal world your post here would make sense. Alas we do not live in an ideal world, we live in a world where people generally seem to know very little about mental health, it's treatment, or the facilities, services and procedures that exist.

I don't see how knowing the details of this particular case would give people any greater understanding of mental health in general. There are already plenty of resources available through many channels if people actually wanted to inform themselves about mental health.

So "big news" stories like this pushed to the front of the media circus WILL in fact color the expectations and impressions of many people.

Young girls who have heard this story on the radio or television, or in the paper, or worse second hand Chinese whisper style from someone who got it from the media........... will alas have this as their ONLY basis for building an expectation of what will happen when they bring their own case forward.

That entire paragraph is merely your own invention based upon speculation. I see no need to entertain it tbh.

So I think eviltwin's claim that clarity and transparency and explanation, as far as we can without stepping over other moral boundaries like patient confidentiality, is not really too much to ask for and there are genuine reasons for wishing for it.

The report already goes as far as it can without stepping over other moral boundaries like patient confidentiality, and as genuine as those reasons for wishing for clarity, transparency and an explanation are, they don't outweigh the need for, and the right to privacy in the circumstances in this case.

In any case I don't believe it to be in the public interest to publish identifiable details of any case involving such sensitive matters.

noaddedsugar

seamus wrote: »

If you arrive at any doctor - whether a GP or an A&E - telling them that you're suicidal, you won't get sectioned.

In fact we hear no end of cases of people who've arrived at an A&E seeking help for suicide, only to be told to come back on Monday.

Yet apparently if you're suicidal and pregnant, there is an urgent rush to get you committed. That's the part that stinks about this whole thing. Had she arrived suicidal but not pregnant, would she have been sectioned? I very doubt it, that's not how the Irish health system works.

That's the main thing that stinks about this case; once again the legal rights of the individual (who was sectioned based on a flawed diagnosis) have been steamrolled by the Irish health system apparently just to protect a foetus, and not because it was the right course of action.

I agree. My husband presented himself to a&e as he was suicidal and told to do so by our GP. They sent him home within half an hour telling him to google CBT, that was it not even a come back on Monday. It is most definitely not the norm to be admitted never mind sectioned when you present as suicidal. Anyone who thinks that such action is 'normal' of our services in this country hasn't tried to access them.