emo72 wrote: » i was shocked myself. put exactly that to a referendum. id bet me house on how it would go.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
Delirium wrote: » So why didn't the doctors perform an abortion when it was requested by Savita?
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.
GarIT wrote: » In something is in me and is a part of me I have control over it. When something detaches itself from me and is not inside me it has the right to autonomy IMO. Also, I support abortion before life (the ability to have independent thoughts) begins but not after.
baylah17 wrote: » Truth is Ronan and and his Youth Defence militia are responsible for the killing of Savita. She was told she had to die because because this is a Catholic country. The only saving grace is that she and her baby were not thrown in the nearest septic tank.
jjmcclure wrote: » This is a nonsense argument. From the moment the child is born it will be entirely dependent on you until it is fully grown and independent. Should you have the right to "choose" to kill your six week old baby because it is totally dependent on you?
baylah17 wrote: » She was told she had to die because because this is a Catholic country.
The only saving grace is that she and her baby were not thrown in the nearest septic tank.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » An abortion was not deemed medically necessary at that point given that from her medical team's perspective there was no "real and substantial risk" to her life. Her consultant testified that had Savita’s blood results been in before Wednesday, she would have felt differently and ordered a termination. From the letter posted above: It's worth noting that the Jury at the inquest did not agree with Dr.Boylan, as if they had they would not have returned a unanimous verdict of death by medical misadventure. It's quite sad that after all this time the prochoice are still attempting to use Savita's death in this way.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Oh, so at 17-weeks a fetus is a "baby" now? I thought they were just "blobs of biological matter" or (on a good day) a "bunch of cells"?
thee glitz wrote: » Surely it couldn't happen again though?
January wrote: » You don't seem to get the fact that had Savita been granted the termination when she had first asked for it then the very thing that caused the sepsis would not have been there. The 8th amendment meant that her requests for a termination had been declines, her life shouldn't have had to be left hanging in the balance before a doctor could decide whether they could perform a termination or not.
PopePalpatine wrote: » You missed the part where the six week-old baby is out of the womb.
sunshine and showers wrote: » This is an anti-choice myth. Nobody turns around at 7 months pregnant and thinks, "actually, this isn't for me. I know longer want this baby that I wanted last week."
spookwoman wrote: » I'm not anti choice in fact I'm for abortion, be it i don't want it, I can't afford it, it's going to interfere with my life, it's got something wrong with it after tests, medical reasons. I do think there has to be a line drawn when there is not actually a problem with the foetus or woman later on in the pregnancy.
