Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

13-06-2017 05:57PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

there doesn't appear to be any suggestion that she was any immediate threat of suicide.

What was she sectioned for then?

the headbanger · 13-06-2017 05:59PM

kylith wrote: »

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?

Eh. Obviously a section.

Then give the child to one of the countless couples the length and breadth of the country who would do anything to have a child and provide an excellent family environment.

13-06-2017 06:02PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

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.

Suicides post abortion? How many? Any proof they had any connection to the abortion?

please helpThank YOU · 13-06-2017 06:02PM

the headbanger wrote: »

Eh. Obviously a section.

Then give the child to one of the countless couples the length and breadth of the country who would do anything to have a child and provide an excellent family environment.

Why do that ? like the nuns give a way the poor children to the rich Americans?

eviltwin · 13-06-2017 06:02PM

the headbanger wrote: »

Eh. Obviously a section.

Then give the child to one of the countless couples the length and breadth of the country who would do anything to have a child and provide an excellent family environment.

That would involve waiting until such time that the foetus is viable. You can't do a section within the first trimester. What do you do with her until then given that she might just decide to take a trip outside the country.

13-06-2017 06:04PM

the headbanger wrote: »

Eh. Obviously a section.

Then give the child to one of the countless couples the length and breadth of the country who would do anything to have a child and provide an excellent family environment.

Ahh so you believe women are little more than incubators, like bitches in a puppy farm.
Who should be forced to stay pregnant, in order to give their child away to someone else.
What a compassionate view of women

neonsofa · 13-06-2017 06:05PM

Cant quote properly on mobile but someone posted this in their post:

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. “

And I think this is the important bit. I can't claim to know what exactly happened. From what I have read, the girl and her mother thought that she was being offered a termination. The fact she was then sectioned against her will, while already pregnant against her will, and claiming to be suicidal as a result, seems so inhumane to me. I don't know whether they told her a decision was pending re the termination or whether she was told she couldn't have one??

Having found myself pregnant at a young age myself I can't imagine feeling that helpless. To have choices taken from me in that way would make me feel so helpless and I can only imagine that would exasperate the sheer desperation she was already feeling in the situation she was in.

The very fact that I knew I had options available to me and (generally) supportive agencies and people to support me through my decisions whatever they may be, was the only thing that kept me somewhat calm in a (perceived) crisis. I was awarded an environment in which I felt I could have some control over my body and my life decisions when all control had been taken from me at that point. To imagine a poor child feeling suicidal and seeking support to then have her control and choice taken from her, however temporarily, just seems counterproductive to me.

Peregrine · 13-06-2017 06:07PM

the headbanger banned for a day and banned from the thread. Please don't try to reply to them.

please helpThank YOU · 13-06-2017 06:07PM

This is this Girl business not the narrow minded Irish state who do not care about any one. Just money and themselves.

kylith · 13-06-2017 06:09PM

the headbanger wrote: »

Eh. Obviously a section.

Then give the child to one of the countless couples the length and breadth of the country who would do anything to have a child and provide an excellent family environment.

So, taking a suicidal teenager, strapping her to a bed for months and forcing her to undergo massive and uncomfortable bodily changes which have already made her suicidal before then forcing her to undergo major surgery against her will? Do you think that this is likely to leave her mental health better or worse than before she went to a doctor?

I may not be able to conceive, something which saddens and worries me. However if I adopted a baby and then found out that it had been the product of the pregnancy a suicidal teenager was forced to bear while strapped to a fucking gurney for 4 months I would be horrified at myself and my country. If one heard that teenaged Chinese girls were being forced to have babies for the adoption market we'd be rightly outraged, and here you are; blasé-ly suggesting that we do just that with suicidal women. I am utterly disgusted in you.

I would prefer to never have a child than be given one that is the product of such misery. It is no-one's obligation to have babies for other people.

koumi · 13-06-2017 06:12PM

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Why do that ? like the nuns give a way the poor children to the rich Americans?

there are a lot of foster situations and less adoption cases directly as a response to this scenario. I think for many people it can work out, I know someone who unable to deal with an unplanned "unwanted" pregnancy and placed the child with foster parents while she sorted out her life. She went on to become a social worker herself.
At the same time, for those unable to contend with the pregnancy from the get go and which may result in suicidal ideation the options are more difficult and specifically in terms of FFA, terminations must be considered with the same kind of respect. All these women should have our support in helping them come to terms with the difficulties they face and on occasion have to endure.

PucaMama · 13-06-2017 06:12PM

eviltwin wrote: »

the headbanger wrote: »

Eh. Obviously a section.

Then give the child to one of the countless couples the length and breadth of the country who would do anything to have a child and provide an excellent family environment.

That would involve waiting until such time that the foetus is viable. You can't do a section within the first trimester. What do you do with her until then given that she might just decide to take a trip outside the country.

Have her sectioned until she's not a risk to the life of the child

Anita Blow · 13-06-2017 06:15PM

kylith wrote: »

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?

It's rarely as straightforward as that and every case is different, but on the surface then the test criteria for the POLDP Act would've been met and she would've been granted an abortion.

But that isn't what happened in this case. People care casting aspersions on to the motives of the psychiatrist and dragging him through the mud by filling the gaps in themselves. All we know is that the girl voiced several specific reasons for wanting the termination. It's likely that some of these reasons suggested that her problems were amenable to other forms of therapy (drug therapy, counselling) first. The 2nd psychiatrist found she had no acute mental illness at all so no psychiatrist found her suitable for an abortion based on the criteria of the POLDP Act

eviltwin · 13-06-2017 06:15PM

PucaMama wrote: »

Have her sectioned until she's not a risk to the life of the child

Are you serious? Do you really think its acceptable to put women into mental institutions in order to prevent them from having an abortion? A woman seeking an abortion is not mentally ill. You would be taking up valuable bed space for those in need and impacting massively on the mental health of the woman involved. Do you really think that after she has been forced into a section and sent on her merry way that she will move on from the experience? It is barbaric to even suggest putting any woman through that. No one should be forced into a mental hospital just because she wants to have an abortion. I think its unbelievable that anyone could ever justify it or think its an acceptable treatment of pregnant women.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 06:16PM

bubblypop wrote: »

What was she sectioned for then?

She was sectioned according to Section 25 of the Mental Health Act and it's a bit long so I won't quote the whole lot, but the general gist of it is this -

25.—(1) Where it appears to a health board with respect to a child who resides or is found in its functional area that—

(a) the child is suffering from a mental disorder, and

(b) the child requires treatment which he or she is unlikely to receive unless an order is made under this section,

then, the health board may make an application to the District Court (“the court”) for an order authorising the detention of the child in an approved centre.

PopePalpatine · 13-06-2017 06:18PM

....... wrote: »

Are you drunk?

Nah, a feeeeeeemale handed him his ass on CoD.

koumi · 13-06-2017 06:20PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Nah, a feeeeeeemale handed him his ass on CoD.

I think femoid is the word you're looking for there

please helpThank YOU · 13-06-2017 06:22PM

This to me is like a cruel case from the 1800s Ireland . This poor girl should having being allowed to go to England to have a Abortion . But no the Irish state uses the Child Care Act? like the care like what goes on ever day in family law courts.

13-06-2017 06:23PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

She was sectioned according to Section 25 of the Mental Health Act and it's a bit long so I won't quote the whole lot, but the general gist of it is this -

And in the report it states that the psychiatrist deemed the girl was suicidal as a result of her pregnancy.

nozzferrahhtoo · 13-06-2017 06:24PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

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

There is a third one I have seen a few people getting somewhat upset, or at least highly confused and worried, about. Which is that of the ALLEGED situation that she traveled under the assumption she was going for an abortion.

I too am curious how she reached, assuming she did, that conclusion. Was she misinformed, mistaken, or misled perchance? OR are we (my suspicions are in that direction at the moment but I genuinely cant tell).

I would say the reason people are upset or worried about it is that it gives off the impression, however true or false, of her having been lured to her sectioning under false pretenses and lies. I am not claiming that, and have no evidence for that, before you jump on me again. But I do suspect that is what is bothering some people.

But as it happens I have agreed with the majority of what you have posted on the thread so far, which is why I have not replied to any of it. It is just a shame you parsed my intention entirely wrong on the one reply I did send your way. I can only chalk it down to a simply and entirely natural break down in communication.

I think what some people are missing in your points and posts, and correct me if I am wrong here, is that the professionals do not just have to diagnose the child as suicidal. In fact they do not JUST have to diagnose that her suicidal feelings are due to her pregnancy. But they have to diagnose also that A) abortion will in fact alleviate the problem or, worse, will not exacerbate it in any way and

it is the best (only?) course of action to be offered.

That is my understanding thus far of what is required of these professionals, and as I said I am open to correction on this as the vast majority of my knowledge of abortion is about the biology and ethical arguments of it, not the legal realities of it.

And it is a lot to ask in my opinion because establishing ANY of that, let alone "B", is at best an educated guess work and judgement call?

Anita Blow · 13-06-2017 06:25PM

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.
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.

There's no perfect solution but there is established medical practice backed up by a multitude of evidence and guidelines in psychiatry. Suicidal ideation is not enough itself to be detained. However if a patient voices that they have previously planned taking their own life, that plan was credible, and that if they're discharged they may kill themselves in the near future (IE before you can schedule a 2nd appointment) then they are to be detained.

There is absolutely no reason, based on the report or article, to suggest that the girl did not voice these plans. It's perfectly possible that on a subsequent assessment she is found to have no acute medical illness. There was an article recently in the IT about a guy who had presented to a psychiatrist who lied about having schizophrenia. He had lifted the signs+symptoms of schizophrenia from a textbook and was later found to have no mental illness. It happens.

The assertion that the situation would be different if she wasn't pregnant isn't based on the facts. You've removed the pregnancy from the situation but you've also changed the circumstances (that the psych initially finds her not to have a mental illness but in this story he did) so she never would've been detained so it isn't comparable to this situation. If he justifies that she wasn't an immediate suicide risk then he is legally and ethically justified in discharging her. However if, like this story, he did find she was an immediate suicide risk then he is neither legally or ethically justified in discharging her

gctest50 · 13-06-2017 06:28PM

PucaMama wrote: »

Have her sectioned until she's not a risk to the life of the child

omg omg , you could stack them up and save space

Anita Blow · 13-06-2017 06:30PM

bubblypop wrote: »

And in the report it states that the psychiatrist deemed the girl was suicidal as a result of her pregnancy.

And he also deemed that termination was not the only cure for her suicidal ideation. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the POLDP Act here. It is not a case that suicidal ideation due to the pregnancy is the only criteria that has to be met. Termination must be the only solution for the girl's ideation.

All we know based on the facts is that she voiced several specific reasons for her suicidal intent/pregnancy and based on this knowledge, which none of us are party to, it was determined that termination was not the only cure for her ideation.

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 06:35PM

bubblypop wrote: »

And in the report it states that the psychiatrist deemed the girl was suicidal as a result of her pregnancy.

Suicidal as a result of her pregnancy doesn't mean she was sectioned because she was suicidal?

Being suicidal as a result of her pregnancy still wouldn't indicate that an abortion would alleviate her distress and suicidal ideation.

I'm still stuck as to what you think obviously should have happened next given that the parties involved were acting in accordance with the law?

gctest50 · 13-06-2017 06:40PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Being suicidal as a result of her pregnancy still wouldn't indicate that an abortion would alleviate her distress and suicidal ideation.

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

neonsofa · 13-06-2017 06:41PM

Anita Blow wrote: »

And he also deemed that termination was not the only cure for her suicidal ideation. There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the POLDP Act here. It is not a case that suicidal ideation due to the pregnancy is the only criteria that has to be met. Termination must be the only solution for the girl's ideation.

All we know based on the facts is that she voiced several specific reasons for her suicidal intent/pregnancy and based on this knowledge, which none of us are party to, it was determined that termination was not the only cure for her ideation.

Does this mean that the pregnancy wasn't the only thing causing her to feel suicidal or does it mean that termination is not the only "cure" for the pregnancy causing suicidal thoughts?

One eyed Jack · 13-06-2017 06:45PM

gctest50 wrote: »

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

Yes gc, I read that earlier too, and certainly I have no doubt he knows what he's talking about, but just as I would trust he knows what he's talking about, so too do I trust that all the people involved in this particular case knew what they were doing and were acting in the best interests of the child in question.

neonsofa · 13-06-2017 06:48PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes gc, I read that earlier too, and certainly I have no doubt he knows what he's talking about, but just as I would trust he knows what he's talking about, so too do I trust that all the people involved in this particular case knew what they were doing and were acting in the best interests of the child in question.

And people can know what they're doing and be acting in the best interests of the patient, and still be wrong. Not saying anybody was or wasn't, just that they could have been. Despite best intentions or professional opinion.

please helpThank YOU · 13-06-2017 06:51PM

Was the girl in question in state care hse Tusla ? I think the where because of the.(` child care act `)? . being used to stop the girl having abortion. Sounds like hse/Tusla to me in my opinion and under the child care act you can get custody of the child under the childcare act .

eviltwin · 13-06-2017 06:52PM

please helpThank YOU wrote: »

Was the girl in question in state care hse Tusla ? I think the where because of the.(` child care act `)? . being used to stop the girl having abortion. Sounds like hse/Tusla to me in my opinion and under the child care act you can get custody of the child under the childcare act .

Doesn't appear so. She travelled up to Dublin with her mother so that would imply she was living at home with her family.

Girl sectioned after psychiatrist ruled out abortion

Comments