RobertKK wrote: » Dr Boylan used the Savita case incorrectly, and then said he couldn't think of any other case where the 8th amendment led to death. The 8th amendment is a red herring.
thee glitz wrote: » I thought there was some level of doubt amongst the doctors, that they were considering law rather than medicine.
Sheeps wrote: » Calm down, its just a small statement of fact.
Sheeps wrote: » You're going to be placed on a waiting list, in which case you'll probably have the baby before you get the abortion.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Don't forget that this was before the horrific POLDPA legislation finally landed - all our doctors were in legal limbo. There was no, zero legislation on abortion in Ireland at the time, just the 8th amendment itself.
Arguably the 8th amendment, with no other legislation, would make terminating Savita's pregnancy murder. Killing Savita would obviously be murder, and the 8th says the "unborn" has an equal right to life, so...
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Don't forget that this was before the horrific POLDPA legislation finally landed - all our doctors were in legal limbo. There was no, zero legislation on abortion in Ireland at the time, just the 8th amendment itself. Arguably the 8th amendment, with no other legislation, would make terminating Savita's pregnancy murder. Killing Savita would obviously be murder, and the 8th says the "unborn" has an equal right to life, so...
January wrote: » The foetus within Savita still had a heart beat. It was slow and getting slower each day but it was still there so even though Savita was getting sicker the doctors didn't know whether she was 'sick enough' that they could perform an abortion without being reprimanded for it.
January wrote: » The 8th amendment killed Savita.
"I also informed Ms Halappanavar that if we did not identify another source of infection or if she did not continue to improve we might have no option but to consider a termination regardless of the foetal heart"
HIQA Investigation: HIQA released their report on their investigation into the standard of services provide to Savita Halappanavar on Wednesday, 9 October 2013. The Terms of Reference had been approved by the Board of the Authority on 27 November 2012 and the Investigation Team was announced on 19 December 2012. The Authority identified, through a review of Savita Halappanavar’s healthcare record, a number of missed opportunities which, had they been identified and acted upon, may have potentially changed the outcome of her care. In all they identified 13 different points at which interventions could have made a difference to saving Savita’s life. In summary, of the care provided there was a:general lack of provision of basic, fundamental care, for example, not following up on blood tests as identified in the case of Savita Halappanavar failure to recognise that Savita Halappanavar was at risk of clinical deterioration failure to act or escalate concerns to an appropriately qualified clinician when Savita Halappanavar was showing the signs of clinical deterioration. Coroner’s Inquest: On 19 April 2013, after seven days of evidence from 36 witnesses, Dr. Ciarán McLoughlin returned a verdict of medical misadventure in the case of Savita Halappanavar. He highlighted deficiencies in her care which included:Blood tests indicating possible infection were not collected Savita’s pulse rate was elevated at 114 but the on-call doctor was not aware of this Savita’s vital signs were not checked for more than nine hours, in breach of hospital guidelines Although Savita’s pulse rises to 160, with a fever and a foul smelling discharge, the discharge was not relayed to Savita’s consultant Compounding these system failures was the presence of E.coli ESBL bacteria. The Coroner made 9 National Recommendations in his report including:following up of blood samples, following protocols for the management of sepsis, proper and effective communication between staff, protocols for antibiotic use in sepsis, early communication with patients to ensure their treatment plan is understood and the use of warning scores to be used in all State hospitals.
Sir, – The recent inquest on Savita Halappanavar has raised important issues about hospital infection in obstetrics. Much of the public attention appears to have been directed at the expert opinion of Dr Peter Boylan who suggested that Irish law prevented necessary treatment to save Ms Halappanavar’s life. We would suggest that this is a personal view, not an expert one. Furthermore, it is impossible for Dr Boylan, or for any doctor, to predict with certainty the clinical course and outcome in the case of Savita Halappanavar where sepsis arose from the virulent and multi drug-resistant organism, E.coli ESBL. What we can say with certainty is that where ruptured membranes are accompanied by any clinical or bio-chemical marker of infection, Irish obstetricians understand they CAN intervene with early delivery of the baby if necessary. Unfortunately, the inquest shows that in Galway University Hospital the diagnosis of chorioamnionitis was delayed and relevant information was not noted and acted upon. The facts as produced at the inquest show this tragic case to be primarily about the management of sepsis, and Dr Boylan’s opinion on the effect of Irish law did not appear to be shared by the coroner, or the jury, of the inquest. Additionally there are many well-documented fatalities from sepsis in women following termination of pregnancy. To concentrate on the legal position regarding abortion in the light of such a case as that in Galway does not assist our services to pregnant women. It is clear that maternal mortality in developed countries is rising, in the US, Canada, Britain, Denmark, Netherlands and other European countries. The last Confidential Enquiry in Britain (which now includes Ireland) recommended a “return to basics” and stated that many maternal deaths are related to failure to observe simple clinical signs such as fever, headache and changes in pulse rate and blood pressure. Many of the failings highlighted in Galway have been described before in these and other reports. The additional problem of multi-resistant organisms causing infection, largely as a result of antibiotic use and abuse, is a serious cause of concern and may lead to higher death rates in all areas of medicine. Ireland’s maternal health record is one of the best in the world in terms of our low rate of maternal death (including Galway hospital). The case in Galway was one of the worst cases of sepsis ever experienced in that hospital, and the diagnosis of ESBL septicaemia was almost unprecedented among Irish maternity units. It is important that all obstetrical units in Ireland reflect on the findings of the events in Galway and learn how to improve care for pregnant women. To reduce it to a polemical argument about abortion may lead to more – not fewer – deaths in the future. – Yours sincerely, Dr. John Monaghan, DCH FRCPI FRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Dr. Cyril Thornton, MB BCh MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Dr. Eamon Mc Guinness, MB BCh MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Dr. Trevor Hayes, MB BCh FRCS MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Dr. Chris King, MB DCH MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Dr. Eileen Reilly, MB ChB MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynecologist Prof John Bonnar, MD FRCPI FRCOG Professor Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology Prof Eamon O’Dwyer, MB MAO LLB FRCPI FRCOG Professor Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology Prof Stephen Cusack, MB BCh FRCSI Consultant in Emergency Medicine Dr. Rory Page, MB BCh FFA RCSI Consultant Anaesthetist Dr. James Clair, MB BCh PhD FRCPath Consultant Microbiologist
emo72 wrote: » i was shocked myself. put exactly that to a referendum. id bet me house on how it would go.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » It's not that they don't know, it's that their freedom to act is constrained by the constitution.
January wrote: » Before 12 weeks you can take a pill. 92% of abortions occur before 12 weeks
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » As long as the 8th is there it can happen again.
January wrote: » Could happen again next week. As long as their is ambiguity as to where the rights of the foetus ends and the right to life of the woman begins then it could happen again. The foetus within Savita still had a heart beat. It was slow and getting slower each day but it was still there so even though Savita was getting sicker the doctors didn't know whether she was 'sick enough' that they could perform an abortion without being reprimanded for it.
Sheeps wrote: » Calm down, its just a small statement of fact. If cost is an issue, what makes you think you're going to be able to get it done in Ireland. You're going to be placed on a waiting list, in which case you'll probably have the baby before you get the abortion.
thee glitz wrote: » Surely it couldn't happen again though?
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » The NUI graduates who voted for that man really need to take a long, hard look at themselves. Although half of them are probably priests from Maynooth :rolleyes:
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » As if money was the only thing in consideration though? Firstly this is basically an invasive surgery. Which can come with all kinds of side effects and emotions. Do you not think a woman might prefer to be in familiar and comfortable surroundings? Secondly a lot of women change their mind. However since the time and effort to travel to the UK is high for some women in financial or other duress..... some may feel compelled by thinking "Well I am here now, I best go through with it" because they know they might not be able to come back again if they RE change their mind. Third I am not convinced it even WOULD be cheaper. Ryanair and low fares airlines have us thinking flights are cheap, but when you add up all the associated costs, accommodation, foods, travel from isolated airports no where near the city they are named for and so forth.... it can really add up. Fourth who even cares what is cheaper? The question is should we as a nation be offering this service at all, or not. That is a stand alone moral and ethical question and to hell with the costs of getting it elsewhere. Fifth, it might be cheaper for her to travel ALONE to the UK. But why do we want her to be alone when electing for such a procedure. Might she not want people with her? What of the costs of that? Sixth, you assume the procedure goes well. What if it does not. Said women is then in a foreign country, suffering from medical complications. Would she not be better off at home near her own hospitals, and on her own medical insurance and so forth? Should I go on, or is this enough to show just how poorly thought out your comment was?
January wrote: » Yes. She would be. As stated several times by many health care professionals who've reviewed her case. The 8th amendment killed Savita.
cnocbui wrote: » Yes, I got that he was lying about that bit but he was nonetheless correct about her still being alive if she had been able to get the termination she ultimately requested.
Grayson wrote: » It's a clear lie that he said. Savita wanted to be pregnant.
