Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 04:39PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

How about that for light-hearted

It is certainly taken in the spirit in which it is offered, and as containing the level of quality you indicate

But I would certainly question the strength of the position of anyone........

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Duuude, seriously? :pac: (You're gonna wreck that CAPS key btw!)

..... who instead of replying to WHAT you say, decides to attack HOW you say it instead. It is..... telling.

If it makes you feel any better at all though I can certainly say that "triggered" is a modern buzz word I do not use often or gladly. In fact I think I used it today on two threads and that is more in one day than I have used it in the last year (if recollection serves). I assure you I will not be making a habit of it.

I share your distaste for it. But your over reaction to my light hearted side bar left me with no other word that seemed to fit in the moment. It was...... disproportionate and (relatively) extreme.

gctest50 · 13-06-2017 04:41PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

They also appear to have complained that they find the system unworkable and unfair to them. It is asking them to make calls that they feel they are not trained to, and should not be expected to, make.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/protection-of-life-during-pregnancy-act-is-unworkable-1.3117350

They certainly have my sympathy.

They need to be protected more as a group/all of them

If they discharge someone and a few weeks that person jumps in front of a train it should not come back on them

"Warranty" on their work as far as the hospital gate

It's not an exact science, and people coming to them are not a 1989 toyota

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 04:44PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Casey, on the other hand, said that it would be discriminatory if psychiatrists like her who are pro-life and do not believe in abortion for suicidal pregnant women (as provided for in law and the Constitution) are NOT allowed to decide if suicidal pregnant women can have abortions, even though the answer will always be "No - take three Hail Marys and an Our Father instead".

Indeed and I would be the first to admit I am the LAST person to be able to think of a solution to that conundrum. I, of course, do not think anyone seeking an abortion by choice before 16 weeks should have to justify that to anyone and they should be allowed to do so without jumping into any hoops.

But IF it is deemed the opinion of a psychiatrist is to be involved then I wonder how many workable solutions to keep personal bias out of it I could come up with. Not VERY many I admit. Clearly having the decision done by a panel rather than an individual is one direction to take. An appeals process another. But abortion, unlike some things undergoing appeal processes, is a very time sensitive issue.

Although very much pro-choice on abortion, I would be as uneasy with a pro-choice person rubber stamping every abortion in EXACTLY the same way as you and I would be uneasy about the scenario you describe above.

Which sci-fi book or movie was it that such decisions were made by humans who, as a career choice, had their emotions and biases literally cut out of them so they could become "judges" on things like this? Something is screaming Ian Banks at the back of my mind, but I am not convinced

EDIT: No wait, was it Dune? Frank Herbert? Was there one class in their heirarchy that sacrificed personality and emotion in order to become a kind of "mediator" class? Ah bugger, its probably a trope that permeates a rake load of SciFi which is why I can not pin it down to any one.

gctest50 · 13-06-2017 04:47PM

From the same you posted :

Child and adolescent psychiatrist Peadar O’Grady has for many years been assessing teenagers who are seeking an abortion.

He said it was the denial of abortion services that made young pregnant girls suicidal.

“Often, as soon as you tell them they can have an abortion, their distress dissipates. “

http://bit.ly/2sxd6eF

It has also been observed that suicide in pregnancy (and the year after delivery, known as the ‘puerperium’) has become much less common with access to legal abortion services. Professor Robert Kendell summarised this conclusion in the title of his 1991 review in the British Medical Journal: ‘Suicide in pregnancy and the puerperium, much rarer now: thanks to contraception, legal abortion and less punitive attitudes’. It is therefore clear from the WHO and peer-reviewed research that restricting access to abortion, that is, denying women ‘the right to choose’, raises the risk of suicide in pregnancy.

.

koumi · 13-06-2017 04:53PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

They also appear to have complained that they find the system unworkable and unfair to them. It is asking them to make calls that they feel they are not trained to, and should not be expected to, make.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/protection-of-life-during-pregnancy-act-is-unworkable-1.3117350

They certainly have my sympathy.

I think this is the crux of the issue when it comes down to it. If the argument of pro choicers is that ultimate responsibility rests with the woman it follows then that the onus is upon her, not the psychiatrists or medical practitioners who have granted them the choice.
I can understand that there are many medical professionals who would be uncomfortable making that decision and by all means they should have their own choices respected but also, they should probably not have access to individuals or be involved in practice in such circumstances.

I don't know the details of how abortion is performed elsewhere but the small amount of knowledge I do have suggests that clinics are established which require psychological evaluation prior to the process, (or pending analysis) understandably many of these women will be in similar situations and very likely distressed. They are not "sectioned" under the mental health act however, but processed in an established medical program designed to deal with the specific issue.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 04:57PM

gctest50 wrote: »

From the same you posted :

Indeed, that is a big problem too. When you set up criteria to get abortion you are going to get people incentivised to present with the requirements. And that is NEVER going to be a good thing.

If someone wants an abortion, and they think they can get one if they present as suicidal, then they are going to find ways to present as suicidal. Any what becomes fair game then? Mere words? Or will that escalate to self harm or staged suicide attempts, some of which might unintentionally actually work?

It is not a system that sits easy in my gut for sure.

koumi wrote: »

I don't know the details of how abortion is performed elsewhere but the small amount of knowledge I do have suggests that clinics are established which require psychological evaluation prior to the process, (or pending analysis) understandably many of these women will be in similar situations and very likely distressed. They are not "sectioned" under the mental health act however, but processed in an established medical program designed to deal with the specific issue.

Indeed and I suspect (hope) their remit is not just to evaluate if she is psychologically sound, but other things as well. Such as whether she has come there by her own volition and choice, rather than being forced or cajoled to do so by a parent or angry lover. So while I said above that I wish it ideally to be a choice that rests with the woman alone in choice based abortion........... I also admit I would not like to see evaluation and check and balances removed from the process entirely either.

While I think the MORALITY of offering abortion by choice before 16 weeks is straight forward and the arguments against it extremely poor to non-existent..... the implementation of it in practice and law is very much more complicated and belongs to better humans than I.

wonderfullife · 13-06-2017 05:01PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I share your distaste for it. But your over reaction to my light hearted side bar left me with no other word that seemed to fit in the moment. It was...... disproportionate and (relatively) extreme.

Ok.

Look, I think people are conflating two separate issues here and getting outraged over both.

1. That the girl presented as suicidal and was denied a legal abortion,

and

2. That she was sectioned.

Here is a thought experiment for everyone outraged:

A young pregnant child presents with her mother to a psychiatrist at 3pm with suicidal ideation. The psychiatrist examines her, determines there is no acute mental health problem, agrees to grant a legal abortion and discharges her.

The girl leaves with her mother and goes home. Legal abortion upcoming in a few days.

At 11pm that night, she hangs herself.

Now, who are you outraged at in this hypothetical?

If you're being completely honest, you'll be outraged that the psychiatrist didn't *do more* to protect her.

My point of view, regardless of the abortion decision, is that I'd much prefer an abundance of caution when dealing with the welfare of the child. I'd much prefer she is sectioned incorrectly, appeals the decision and is discharged THAN just initially waved off and ends up taking her own life.

People seem to be conflating things here. They seem to be under the impression the *problem* was that the legal abortion was denied. No, the problem existing before the decision and before facing the psychiatrist was the *suicidal ideation* expressed by a child.

The solution to that may well ultimately be an abortion but in a period of intense stress and crisis in a child, even granting the legal abortion may not have been enough to avert suicide in the following hours or days.

the headbanger · 13-06-2017 05:03PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Ok.

Look, I think people are conflating two separate issues here and getting outraged over both.

1. That the girl presented as suicidal and was denied a legal abortion,

and

2. That she was sectioned.

Here is a thought experiment for everyone outraged:

A young pregnant child presents with her mother to a psychiatrist at 3pm with suicidal ideation. The psychiatrist examines her, determines there is no acute mental health problem, agrees to grant a legal abortion and discharges her.

The girl leaves with her mother and goes home. Legal abortion upcoming in a few days.

At 11pm that night, she hangs herself.

Now, who are you outraged at in this hypothetical?

If you're being completely honest, you'll be outraged that the psychiatrist didn't *do more* to protect her.

My point of view, regardless of the abortion decision, is that I'd much prefer an abundance of caution when dealing with the welfare of the child. I'd much prefer she is sectioned incorrectly, appeals the decision and is discharged THAN just initially waved off and ends up taking her own life.

People seem to be conflating things here. They seem to be under the impression the *problem* was that the legal abortion was denied. No, the problem existing before the decision and before facing the psychiatrist was the *suicidal ideation* expressed by a child.

The solution to that may well ultimately be an abortion but in a period of intense stress and crisis in a child, even granting the legal abortion may not have been enough to avert suicide in the following hours or days.

I'm outta here. 36 pages of tripe posted by pimply virgins living in their mothers' dungeons, nit picking what they each said and arguing over words.

You don't kill children.

Mod: banned

....... · 13-06-2017 05:04PM

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali · 13-06-2017 05:06PM

the headbanger wrote: »

I'm outta here.

Mind the door.

13-06-2017 05:08PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Ok.

Look, I think people are conflating two separate issues here and getting outraged over both.

1. That the girl presented as suicidal and was denied a legal abortion,

and

2. That she was sectioned.

Here is a thought experiment for everyone outraged:

A young pregnant child presents with her mother to a psychiatrist at 3pm with suicidal ideation. The psychiatrist examines her, determines there is no acute mental health problem, agrees to grant a legal abortion and discharges her.

The girl leaves with her mother and goes home. Legal abortion upcoming in a few days.

At 11pm that night, she hangs herself.

Now, who are you outraged at in this hypothetical?

If you're being completely honest, you'll be outraged that the psychiatrist didn't *do more* to protect her.

My point of view, regardless of the abortion decision, is that I'd much prefer an abundance of caution when dealing with the welfare of the child. I'd much prefer she is sectioned incorrectly, appeals the decision and is discharged THAN just initially waved off and ends up taking her own life.

People seem to be conflating things here. They seem to be under the impression the *problem* was that the legal abortion was denied. No, the problem existing before the decision and before facing the psychiatrist was the *suicidal ideation* expressed by a child.

The solution to that may well ultimately be an abortion but in a period of intense stress and crisis in a child, even granting the legal abortion may not have been enough to avert suicide in the following hours or days.

the first psychiatrist assessed that she was suicidal, as a result of her pregnancy, but the psychiatrist decided not to invoke the Act and instead decided to section the young distressed girl.
that is what people have a problem with.

the psychiatrist themself said the girl was suicidal, as a result of her pregnancy. It seems fairly obvious what should have happened

gctest50 · 13-06-2017 05:08PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

The solution to that may well ultimately be an abortion but in a period of intense stress and crisis in a child, even granting the legal abortion may not have been enough to avert suicide in the following hours or days.

wonderfullife wrote: »

...even granting the legal abortion may not have been enough

Often it is enough

koumi · 13-06-2017 05:12PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Indeed and I suspect (hope) their remit is not just to evaluate if she is psychologically sound, but other things as well. Such as whether she has come there by her own volition and choice, rather than being forced or cajoled to do so by a parent or angry lover. So while I said above that I wish it ideally to be a choice that rests with the woman alone in choice based abortion........... I also admit I would not like to see evaluation and check and balances removed from the process entirely either.

I would hope and imagine that such facilities would be operated by fully trained medical professionals who carry more than just the weight of authority to perform procedures but qualified and sound counsel, over a period of several days, in an environment that is safe and healing and that provides a wealth of understanding, which discusses options and alternatives but which seeks above all to resolve the situation with the best outcome in terms of the health and well being of the patient. Like any other doctor.

eviltwin · 13-06-2017 05:16PM

the headbanger wrote: »

Better than being a cold calculating killer. Not much between the pro murder camp and Myra Hindley

This thread is making for an interesting discussion. Don't try and derail it with hyperbolic, hysterical nonsense like that.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 05:16PM

bubblypop wrote: »

the first psychiatrist assessed that she was suicidal, as a result of her pregnancy, but the psychiatrist decided not to invoke the Act and instead decided to section the young distressed girl.
that is what people have a problem with.

the psychiatrist themself said the girl was suicidal, as a result of her pregnancy. It seems fairly obvious what should have happened

Do you think that it's not really obvious at all what should have happened given we know almost nothing about this particular case?

Otherwise, I'm not sure what's so obvious that you think should have happened when there doesn't appear to be any suggestion that she was any immediate threat of suicide.

the headbanger · 13-06-2017 05:17PM

eviltwin wrote: »

This thread is making for an interesting discussion. Don't try and derail it with hyperbolic, hysterical nonsense like that.

Shut your evil mouth

Mod: banned

wonderfullife · 13-06-2017 05:17PM

gctest50 wrote: »

Often it is enough

And in the cases it's not? Shrug your shoulders?

Google "pregnant woman suicide" or "pregnant teen suicide" and you'll find tons and tons of examples of mis-diagnosed antenatal depression and/or acute mental illness.

The psychiatrist made a determination to section her, it was appealed and over-turned. I'd rather we go that end of the spectrum than chronically under-appreciate or mis-diagnose mental health problems, whether in pregnancy or not in pregnancy.

Your conclusion is: "Give her the abortion, problem solved".

You may be correct in that 9 times out of 10. It's not always the correct answer and it's why UK and Irish law is set out the way it is. Women in their 20's, 30's, 40's can and have been denied legal abortions in the UK because a determination was made abortion would be more harmful to physical/mental health than bringing the pregnancy to term.

It's thankfully very rare.

the headbanger · 13-06-2017 05:21PM

the headbanger wrote: »

Shut your evil mouth

Suicide. Nothing but a sinister little loophole created by the pro murder side to get what they want.

I say call their bluff. If we are wrong, at least there's one less murderer around.

eviltwin · 13-06-2017 05:22PM

the headbanger wrote: »

Shut your evil mouth

Says it all really :rolleyes:

gctest50 · 13-06-2017 05:26PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

.....
Your conclusion is: "Give her the abortion, problem solved".

.....

Not my conclusion at all

Child and adolescent psychiatrist Peadar O’Grady has for many years been assessing teenagers who are seeking an abortion.

He said it was the denial of abortion services that made young pregnant girls suicidal.

“Often, as soon as you tell them they can have an abortion, their distress dissipates. “

http://bit.ly/2sxd6eF

....... · 13-06-2017 05:26PM

This post has been deleted.

seamus · 13-06-2017 05:27PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

Here is a thought experiment for everyone outraged:

A young pregnant child presents with her mother to a psychiatrist at 3pm with suicidal ideation. The psychiatrist examines her, determines there is no acute mental health problem, agrees to grant a legal abortion and discharges her.

The girl leaves with her mother and goes home. Legal abortion upcoming in a few days.

At 11pm that night, she hangs herself.

Now, who are you outraged at in this hypothetical?

If you're being completely honest, you'll be outraged that the psychiatrist didn't *do more* to protect her.

If I'm being completely honest I would say that the psychiatrist did what he believed in good faith would resolve the problem. Basically you're suggesting that if a psychiatrist can't "fix" suicidal ideation in a single appointment, he should section the patient.
Any patient who leaves the doctor's office after presenting with suicidal ideation, is at risk of suicide. There is no perfect solution.

Remove the pregnancy from the equation;

Girl and her mother attend, girl is suicidal. Psychiatrist after examination finds that there is no mental disorder such that she could legally be sectioned. Discusses the matter with them both, prescribes anti-depressants and provides a referral to a CBT specialist. Girl appears to the psychiatrist to be somewhat satisfied with the outcome of the appointment and discharges her.

Girl hangs herself that night.

Are you still outraged at the psychiatrist? I wouldn't be.

the headbanger · 13-06-2017 05:34PM

....... wrote: »

Are you drunk?

Not as such. And I'm certainly not drunk on the tide of nonsense spewed forth by nosey millennials who "want their say" in order to rub out the rights of babies

please helpThank YOU · 13-06-2017 05:47PM

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.

Ireland 2017?.

thee glitz · 13-06-2017 05:51PM

gctest50 wrote: »

Not my conclusion at all

Often, as soon as you tell them they can have an abortion, their distress dissipates.

That seems a rather extreme patch-up fix, with permanent repercussions, for a treatable illness.

AnGaelach · 13-06-2017 05:53PM

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Ireland 2017?.

Hang on it's what year?!!

gctest50 · 13-06-2017 05:54PM

thee glitz wrote: »

That seems a rather extreme patch-up fix, with permanent repercussions, for a treatable illness.

When you get pregnant there you can fill in the good Doctor

wonderfullife · 13-06-2017 05:54PM

seamus wrote: »

If I'm being completely honest I would say that the psychiatrist did what he believed in good faith would resolve the problem. Basically you're suggesting that if a psychiatrist can't "fix" suicidal ideation in a single appointment, he should section the patient.

But in this case the psychiatrist *did* what he believed in good faith would ameliorate the problem. The initial step to section her, rightly or wrongly, came from a good faith basis to try deal with initial suicidal ideation.

The system worked. She was sectioned and then she was discharged on appeal, as is her right.

I'm obviously not saying if suicidal ideation can't be fixed that someone should be sectioned. If that were the case I'd have been sectioned half a dozen times myself. But there are instances where doctors, in good faith, make certain determinations that may not be correct...

I was at my GP in the past and told her I was feeling suicidal. I was already on citalopram, xanax, stilnoct and propanalol. Due to my demeanour, appearance, mood, shakiness, whatever she brought me to a different room and told the receptionist not to let me leave the premises, while she arranged for transportation to the hospital.

I'm personally ok with doctors and psychiatrists mis-diagnosing or over-diagnosing (even sectioning) patients as opposed to a culture of doing not enough.

It's a mine-field of an issue but the bottom line is there's far too many suicides in this country, male and female, regardless of pregnancy and if it means they sometimes make the wrong call, even with a pregnant child, I'm ok with it.

I understand why people think the problem here is not giving her the abortion but that's not always the case, as is evidenced by the amount of suicides post-abortion.

kylith · 13-06-2017 05:54PM

thee glitz wrote: »

That seems a rather extreme patch-up fix, with permanent repercussions, for a treatable illness.

If their distress and suicidal ideation are because they are pregnant and don't want to be, and no other reason, what other treatment would you prescribe?

gctest50 · 13-06-2017 05:56PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

.... as is evidenced by the amount of suicides post-abortion.

The mating call of the first year kicks in there, the whole correlation causation craic

Would they have ended their life even if they never got pregnant ?

Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

Comments