Leo Varadkar announces abortion referendum

volchitsa wrote: »

Hmm. TBF there are some huge assumptions in your version of events too, Peregrinus - eg based on a single term in a possibly inaccurate newspaper report you assume that she had previous history of serious mental health issues. From the reporting I have read of incidents where I have had direct knowledge of what happened (unrelated to abortion) I'd be very dubious about that. It's perfectly possible that the "treating psychiatrist" was simply the one her GP sent her to, when she first requested an abortion.

I'm not relying on a newspaper account; I'm looking at the report published by the Child Care Law Reporting Project, which (SFAIK) is what all the newspaper reports and subsequent comment is based on. It's not complete, but it's probably the best source we have.

But I take your point that in some respects I may be adding two and two together to get five. I'm not asserting that the girl had "previous history of serious mental health issues"; just that she was already receiving mental health care when she discovered she was pregnant. Your suggest that the "treating adolescent psychiatrist" may have been one to whom she was referred by her GP when she first sought an abortion. I don't think so; he's described as a her treating psychiatrist, which I think means she was seeing him for treatment and not merely for assessment. But I could be wrong. And, I stress, even if she was receiving psychiatric treatment we don't know what condition she had been diagnosed with and we certainly don't know that her condition would have been described as "serious".

volchitsa wrote: »

You've also missed out that we've been told that the mother brought her to Dublin, believing the process for an abortion was underway. I haven't heard any plausible explanation for why the parents weren't asked for their consent to admit her in the first place, since forced admission is only allowed as a last resort. Clearly there's a lot we don't know, I agree, but IMO the queries over how she ended up sectioned are so major that it seems to me that my short cut is closer to what we know than your assumption of previous mental illness.

I'm not missing that point; it's because of that point that we know the sectioning application was made, and an interim order was given, without any notice to the girl or her family. Like you, I haven't heard any plausible explanation for this, but we can't assume there was none. The psychiatrist must have persuaded the HSE, and both of them must have persuaded the court, that there was a critical urgency that required things to be done this way.

But, despite these points, I think you and I are broadly in agreement. Right-to-choose aside, making abortion conditional on a risk of suicide is a bad policy precisely because the possibility of mental disorder, and therefore sectioning, always raises its head. The legislation requires that the risk of suicide be identified by three(!) medical practitioners and, while suicide is by no means always an outcome of mental illness, that possibility is always going to occur to mental practitioners asked to assess a suicide risk. They're doctors; of course they're going to consider the possibility of mental illness.

The point was made in the X case that the girl wasn't mentally ill, but the point was also made that, as regards the constitutional provisions concerning abortion, it doesn't matter whether a risk of suicide is or is not the outcome of a mental illness; all that matters is whether it is "real and substantial". So it's entirely possible that an application for an abortion under the POLDP Act will also result in sectioning under the MH Act. And, in fact, if sectioning is going to happen, its likely to happen first - i.e. you'll be sectioned before you know whether you qualify for an abortion.

In other words, we can't write off this sectioning as a stuff-up by a stupid psychiatrist and/or a stupid district judge. This is a systemic failure.

And another thought; we all know that if this woman had been 24 instead of 14 she would simply have gone to Britain and had her abortion there, and we need never have known about it. She didn't because she's 14, and in the UK doctors will not administer an abortion on demand to a 14-year old, cash-in-hand, no questions asked. Had she gone to the UK, they would still have wanted to talk to her parents (or at least know why they couldn't), they would still have wanted to talk to her medical advisers, if I'm right in thinking that she was already receiving treatment for a mental health condition they'd have wanted to look into that, etc, etc. 14-year olds just don't have the agency that adults do in this matter.

Which makes the point that the POLDP process is in theory available to all, but in practice it's only going to be availed of by those who can't easily go to the UK - teenagers, prisoners, the already very sick, etc. It's not a coincidence that both the X case and this recent incidence both involved teenagers, and future cases (if the POLDP remains in force) will also involve people who are in some way disadvantaged, vulnerable, not independent agents. These are the people upon whom this train-wreck of a system is being foisted.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Oh, I don't think psychiatrist #1 was stupid or made a mistake, I think they knew exactly what they were doing - defending the right to life of an "unborn".

And the fact that psychiatrist #2 and judge #2 released the girl with no hesitation tells me that THEY knew exactly what psychiatrist #1 was doing, too.

I see no reason to think either of those things.

And I also suggest that thinking them seeks to focus the blame on fallible (or oppressive) individuals, which distracts attention from the real problem, which is the system that it set up so that this happens.

Well, one possible difference was that the patient expressed suicidal ideation to psychiatrist #1 (in the hope that it would secure access to an abortion) but repudiated it to psychiatrists #2 and #3 (in the hope that this would facilitate her discharge).

The fact of the matter is that we don't know what passed when the girl was assessed by any of the psychiatrists. We don't know whether she presented differently to them, leading to different assessments, or she presented similarly, but they still made different assessments because they formed different professional assessments. (Which happens all the time in medical practice; that's why people seek second opinions.)

For the girl to be detained, psychiatrist #1 must have expressed the view that she was suffering from a mental disorder that required treatment. And I see nothing at all to suggest that that wasn't his genuine view, and that he in fact pretended to hold that view in order to impose his views about abortion on the girl. (Particularly when, if anything, being sectioned made it more likely that she would be found to qualify for an abortion under Irish law. Clearly, if she were sectioned on the basis of suicidal ideation, the threat to her life must have been real and substantial.)

Never attribute to conspiracy that which doesn't require a conspiracy to explain it. And, even more, never attribute to conspiracy something that isn't even explained by the conspiracy. And I think this falls into that category.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How often is someone presenting as suicidal sectioned? Whithout their parent knowing in advance? THis is extremely odd.

How often does a 2nd opinion say "Definitley nothing at all wrong with this person that the other person sectioned, release them at once?"

Psychiatrist #2 knew something which made them happy to flatly contradict psychiatrist #1 (although the GAL was careful to let on that the labnguage allowed that the girl had miraculously gotten better).

The end result of which will be that any woman with the money will still travel to England whether or not they are entitled to have an abortion here on mental health grounds. If they think for a second that the psychiatrist will rule based on their moral/religious code they won't take the risk.

Indeed in this scenario it does not even require the psychiatrist to have acted in bad faith. Merely that there is the perception they might have. And I would say the woman would be right to travel just in case the perception is correct and they are unlucky with the choice of psychiatrist.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Never attribute to conspiracy that which doesn't require a conspiracy to explain it.

We already know that hundreds of Irish psychiatrists declared before the POLDP was passed that they would never under any circumstances find that an abortion was justified, law or no law.

What is such a psychiatrist to do with a patient who presents saying that she will kill herself if she is not allowed an abortion?

I may be a little confused... if the 8th is completely repealed, my understanding is that it is then up to the Oireachtas to legislate. That means the government. Are we seriously trusting the government to come up with anything remotely resembling a satisfactory bill? And I am not having a go at them, what I mean is that there are 150-odd people, with diverging opinions on a very contentious issue. How are they going to agree on this?

And then there is all this bunkum about not having to vote on "matters of conscience", as if everything to that one has an opinion on is not a matter of conscience.

pilly wrote: »

So who would you expect to come up with it?

That's the issue, I don't know. For sure, it's the government's job. It's just a mess no matter what and I worry that it will be kicked down the road again and again as they debate the wording. Look how long it's taken to get to this stage.

pilly wrote: »

So who would you expect to come up with it?

The whole point of the Citizen's Assembly was to produce something for the politicians to hide behind.

But it is possible that the Assembly's recommendations will be too liberal for our FG/FF government to swallow (or the next one, which will be FF/FG).

secondrowgal wrote: »

I may be a little confused... if the 8th is completely repealed, my understanding is that it is then up to the Oireachtas to legislate. That means the government. Are we seriously trusting the government to come up with anything remotely resembling a satisfactory bill?

Assuming we're going for a straight repeal referendum, the legislation will be published before the referendum, or will have to be if the government wants it to pass. So voters will be able to take that into account when making their decision.

recedite wrote: »

And others will vote No because they are pro-choice and they feel it doesn't properly reflect their view.

Why would any pro-choice person vote no to a proposal to liberalise abortion law, even if they felt it didn't go far enough?

secondrowgal wrote: »

I may be a little confused... if the 8th is completely repealed, my understanding is that it is then up to the Oireachtas to legislate. That means the government. Are we seriously trusting the government to come up with anything remotely resembling a satisfactory bill? And I am not having a go at them, what I mean is that there are 150-odd people, with diverging opinions on a very contentious issue. How are they going to agree on this?

And then there is all this bunkum about not having to vote on "matters of conscience", as if everything to that one has an opinion on is not a matter of conscience.

It's certainly not going to be anywhere near liberal enough as long as Leo Varadkar wields the party whip. He's already come out publicly and said that he will not support the Citizens' Assembly recommendation, which is definitely what the majority of the young women fronting and driving the huge Repeal campaign regard as the only acceptable outcome.

It's a tricky one to know how to react to really. On the one hand, one can view it as Michael Collins viewed the treaty - not the result you want, but a stepping stone towards that result. On the other hand, if the Dail legislates, you can bet that it will probably be decades before another government has the balls to touch the issue, refusing to do so on the grounds that "we've only just dealt with that, it's already been decided".

So should the repeal campaigners agitate for abortion on demand up to a certain term limit and actively oppose anything less that they are offered by the government, or accept the most likely massively restricted version Leo & co will go for, on the grounds that it's a step in the right direction?