Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

One eyed Jack · 26-11-2017 12:42PM

FishOnABike wrote: »

Can we not do both ?

As private citizens, yes.

As a public policy? Clearly not, as has been demonstrated by the State, and successive Governments time and time again. The State has neither the will, nor the resources, to demonstrate competence.

Zubeneschamali · 27-11-2017 10:40AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I just don't understand your point is all.

It isn't a difficult one. You say:

The point being that a lack of care or substandard care can happen to anyone, regardless of their social status, regardless of what medical care they need or what medical care they feel is appropriate, because of the attitude of some professionals in the medical community, not them all, thankfully, but some, and that's a problem that needs to be addressed within that community, regardless of the outcome of any referendum, or else things simply won't change, in a culture that remains the same.

And you are wrong.

It is not the same regardless of the outcome of any referendum. Women are dead because the 8th amendment interfered with their medical treatment. Another referendum result, replacing the 8th, could prevent that happening again.

Will it fix everything wrong with Irish medical culture? No - nobody said it would. But saying hey, you had issues with consultants too is just an attempt to distract. You did not have issues with consultants because of a Constitutional amendment, and a referendum result would not have changed your treatment. That is no reason not to fix the stupid 80s amendment causing problems in the treatment of pregnant women ever since.

Annasopra · 27-11-2017 11:19AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My understanding is that the unborn having the right to life existed in the constitution long before the 8th amendment

Where?

Geuze · 27-11-2017 11:23AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I

Women are dead because the 8th amendment interfered with their medical treatment.

Is this true?

Can you give the number, please?

There are very few maternal deaths in Ireland.

See here:
http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-vsar/vitalstatisticsannualreport2015/infantmortalitystillbirthsandmaternalmortality2015/

In 2015 there was 1, out of 65,000 births approx.

In 2014 there was 1.

In some years there were 0.

The max in in any year since 1997 was 5.

Can you state how many of these deaths were due to "the 8th amendment"?

Table 4.19 Maternal deaths per 100,000 total live and stillbirths, 1997 - 2015

Year Number of maternal deaths Maternal death rate
1997 3 5.6
1998 2 3.7
1999 1 1.8
2000 1 1.8
2001 3 5.2
2002 5 8.2
2003 – –
2004 1 1.6
2005 1 1.6
2006 – –
2007 2 2.8
2008 3 4.0
2009 3 4.0
2010 1 1.3
2011 2 2.7
2012 2 2.8
2013 3 4.3
2014 1 1.5
2015 1 1.5

....... · 27-11-2017 12:02PM

This post has been deleted.

Triceratops Ballet · 27-11-2017 12:11PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I would also imagine pregnant women who were unable to have other treatments for disease due to being pregnant/ the 8th and subsequently died were not recorded as maternal deaths.

....... · 27-11-2017 12:20PM

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali · 27-11-2017 12:20PM

Geuze wrote: »

Is this true?

YES

Savita Hallapanavar, for example.

One eyed Jack · 27-11-2017 12:22PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It isn't a difficult one. You say:

And you are wrong.

It is not the same regardless of the outcome of any referendum. Women are dead because the 8th amendment interfered with their medical treatment. Another referendum result, replacing the 8th, could prevent that happening again.

That might look good on a placard, but number one - women are not dead because the 8th amendment interfered with their treatment, and two - anything may happen, regardless of the outcome of any referendum.

Will it fix everything wrong with Irish medical culture? No - nobody said it would. But saying hey, you had issues with consultants too is just an attempt to distract. You did not have issues with consultants because of a Constitutional amendment, and a referendum result would not have changed your treatment. That is no reason not to fix the stupid 80s amendment causing problems in the treatment of pregnant women ever since.

No, and until that issue is addressed, then people regardless of whether they're poor, wealthy, brown, white, male or female, will continue to receive substandard treatment regardless of either the jurisdiction they're in, or the jurisdiction they travel to. It's not a distraction, it's the very core of the real issue, and the "unless you're not brown, poor or a woman" was an attempt to divide people on an issue that actually concerns everyone.

It's not the 8th amendment that causes problems at all, the medical community have never been oblivious to it, but it's their attitudes to patient care and the constant displays of both arrogance and incompetence are the underlying issue that needs to be tackled in order to improve healthcare for everyone, and not just poor brown women.

One eyed Jack · 27-11-2017 12:34PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Where?

It was implicit as an unenumerated right, until the 8th amendment made it an explicit right by acknowledging that the State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn. That's why even if the 8th amendment is repealed, the unborn would still have the right to life, unless and Zubenshamali said - it is replaced, and it would have to be replaced with wording that would make it explicit that the unborn has no right to life.

....... · 27-11-2017 12:35PM

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali · 27-11-2017 12:43PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not the 8th amendment that causes problems at all, the medical community have never been oblivious to it, but it's their attitudes to patient care and the constant displays of both arrogance and incompetence are the underlying issue that needs to be tackled in order to improve healthcare for everyone, and not just poor brown women.

There is a 14 year jail sentence waiting for any doctor who crosses the invisible line and terminates a pregnancy because it merely endangers a woman's health and risks leaving her a physical wreck.

This is a problem, and it is caused by the 8th.

Your general unhappiness with the medical profession is a completely separate issue, and irrelevant to the repeal (or not) of the 8th.

Zubeneschamali · 27-11-2017 12:51PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It was implicit as an unenumerated right, until the 8th amendment made it an explicit right by acknowledging that the State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn. That's why even if the 8th amendment is repealed, the unborn would still have the right to life, unless and Zubenshamali said - it is replaced, and it would have to be replaced with wording that would make it explicit that the unborn has no right to life.

No, it was not an unenumerated right before the 8th. The reason the prolifers wanted the stupid wording they used was precisely to create this right.

The issue now is that this right exists, and simply deleting the statement in the Constitution does not necessarily delete that right, so per the Citizen's Assembly recs, we should replace it with an explicit statement that the Oireachtas may legislate here.

GreeBo · 27-11-2017 01:02PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

before I was due to go in for surgery, which I postponed because I wasn't happy with the standard of care being provided, that's why I went elsewhere

How nice for you, being in control of what happens to your body.

....... · 27-11-2017 01:11PM

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack · 27-11-2017 01:17PM

....... wrote: »

Yes they are.

Savita Hallapanavar is one example.

No she isn't, her death was caused by staff incompetence.

Another is this unnamed woman who died on a flight home after getting an abortion in the UK.

http://www.thejournal.ie/fergal-malone-abortion-flight-death-3642355-Oct2017/

An unnamed woman, I'll take that article with a pinch of salt then.

Sheila Hodgers who was denied cancer treatment in case it harmed the fetus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheila_Hodgers

Her death was as a result of cancer.

Please do not make inaccurate statements regarding the deaths of women because of the 8th Amendment. It is insulting and dismissive, not to mention incorrect.

Please take your own advice before you start dishing it out to others.

One eyed Jack · 27-11-2017 01:20PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it was not an unenumerated right before the 8th. The reason the prolifers wanted the stupid wording they used was precisely to create this right.

The issue now is that this right exists, and simply deleting the statement in the Constitution does not necessarily delete that right, so per the Citizen's Assembly recs, we should replace it with an explicit statement that the Oireachtas may legislate here.

Because abortion was unlawful long before the existence of the 8th amendment, the obvious implication of that was that in the natural course of events, the unborn would be born.

SusieBlue · 27-11-2017 01:24PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Her death was as a result of cancer.

Yes, as a result of the fact that she couldn't be treated for her illness due to the fact she was pregnant.
If she had received treatment she may have lived. She was directly affected by the 8th.
Instead she died, her baby died, and her husband was left to pick up the pieces.

uptherebels · 27-11-2017 01:25PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Her death was as a result of cancer.

.

And she wasn't treated for cancer because....?

Saying that it wasn't the fall that killed someone but the sudden stop.....

One eyed Jack · 27-11-2017 01:27PM

GreeBo wrote: »

How nice for you, being in control of what happens to your body.

I did acknowledge as much when I said I had more of a say in what I choose to subject myself to, so does anyone here with the resources to do so, including brown women. Poor people? Not so much, but how many of us here fit into that bracket? I would suggest so few as to make their point an entirely disingenuous effort.

....... wrote: »

There is no "elsewhere" for Irish women affected by the 8th Amendment. Every maternity option in Ireland is affected by it.

Yes there is elsewhere, outside Irish jurisdiction, and if I were on a waiting list for medical treatment, I could have to apply for medical treatment in another jurisdiction -

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/health/patients-on-waiting-lists-to-be-treated-privately-or-abroad-31224311.html

gctest50 · 27-11-2017 01:30PM

And none of this happens if it's left up to a woman and her doctor

Especially when it comes to urgent stuff a doctor can do without the spectre hanging over them

One eyed Jack · 27-11-2017 01:31PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Yes, as a result of the fact that she couldn't be treated for her illness due to the fact she was pregnant.
If she had received treatment she may have lived. She was directly affected by the 8th.
Instead she died, her baby died, and her husband was left to pick up the pieces.

And if she hadn't been pregnant she may have lived too. The point being that there are so many "ifs" there that there were any number of reasons we can look back in hindsight and say if this, if that, if the other, but none of that detracts from what she actually died from, and that wasn't what you're trying to make out caused her death.

uptherebels · 27-11-2017 01:32PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes there is elsewhere, outside Irish jurisdiction, and if I were on a waiting list for medical treatment, I could have to apply for medical treatment in another jurisdiction -

The best thing about this thread is the two most vocal prolifers aren't even pro life. Just nimbys. Pro life out of spite.

....... · 27-11-2017 01:33PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 27-11-2017 01:36PM

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue · 27-11-2017 01:37PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And if she hadn't been pregnant she may have lived too. The point being that there are so many "ifs" there that there were any number of reasons we can look back in hindsight and say if this, if that, if the other, but none of that detracts from what she actually died from, and that wasn't what you're trying to make out caused her death.

No sorry, you can't possibly be serious. I'll break it down, lets look at the facts.

1) She was pregnant
2) She did have cancer.
3) She was denied medical treatment to treat her cancer on the grounds that she was pregnant.
4. She died after suffering weeks (months?) of pain, in agony. Her daughter also died.

Are you trying to argue that the fact that she was pregnant had absolutely zero bearing on her prognosis and subsequent death? How many other cancer patients are denied treatment against their will? Besides those that are pregnant?

One eyed Jack · 27-11-2017 01:51PM

....... wrote: »

Source? I can provide many sources to show you it was because of the 8th Amendment.

Well of course you could, but those would be sources that ignored the fact that she died of medical mismanagement of a sepsis infection so that they could suggest her death was as a result of the existence of the 8th amendment.

She was unnamed to protect her privacy. Unless you have a source to state that the medical professional who gave this information was lying then we will take it as correct.

No not we, you can only speak for yourself, and you're perfectly entitled to believe what suits you. It doesn't add a single shred of credibility to that story though without credible evidence.

Cancer that was untreated because she was pregnant. You may have trouble joining the dots but its clear to everyone else that it was as a result of the 8th Amendment.

No trouble joining the dots thanks, they just don't lead to where you would want them to lead is all.

I provided you 3 examples, with sources. You provided nothing but an uninformed opinion.

My opinion is as informed as your own, you choose to spin a different narrative that ignores factual evidence and includes anonymous anecdotes well you don't get to put responsibility for that on me. You have enough to be doing trying to make up stuff that you can say the 8th amendment is responsible for.

Your post that I have quoted above is one of the clearest examples I have ever seen on this site of quite literally putting your hands over your eyes and ears and refusing to accept facts.

Yourself and end of the road must have trained in the same school of denial.

Or like most people in the country, I can simply see agenda driven bullshìt for what it is. That's why in spite of survey after survey in the media that suggests the Irish people support repeal of the 8th amendment, the reality is that most people simply have no interest in that which they feel doesn't affect them, and that's why it's only a small minority of people who are actually pushing for repeal.

I'm not interested in repeal if all it means is that the it would fall on the Oireachtas to legislate on the issue because it'll take politicians another 20 years to come up with yet more ham-fisted legislation that will satisfy nobody.

....... · 27-11-2017 01:59PM

This post has been deleted.

uptherebels · 27-11-2017 02:01PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No trouble joining the dots thanks, they just don't lead to where you would want them to lead is all.

My opinion is as informed as your own, you choose to spin a different narrative that ignores factual evidence and includes anonymous anecdotes well you don't get to put responsibility for that on me. You have enough to be doing trying to make up stuff that you can say the 8th amendment is responsible for.

So your saying she wasn't treated for her cancer for another reason other than being pregnant? Please do elaborate...

One eyed Jack · 27-11-2017 02:05PM

....... wrote: »

Ah the NIMBY response.

Grand if youre wealthy. **** you if youre poor.

No, it's not the NIMBY response, it's the factual response to your point that there is no elsewhere for women affected by the 8th amendment. There is, and of course it's also a fact that if you have more resources you can afford better healthcare. If you're so concerned about the poor, set up a charity.

Oh and the government only followed through sporadically on that article you posted, and the out sourcing only covered certain procedures. Not cancer. Or maternity care. In fact, I cant see how it would be anyway practical to out source maternity care to another jurisdiction which is why I told you that there is no elsewhere for pregnant Irish women. You cant even fly after a certain stage of pregnancy and a 2 hour drive to a maternity hospital in Belfast would be endangering a woman in labour.

That comes as no surprise to anyone, they have form for that sort of incompetence, and the point was that it's not just for maternity treatment that people have to travel abroad, it can be for a whole range of treatments, but I wouldn't call that NIMBYism, I'd suggest it was simply incompetence on the part of successive Governments in this country.

I don't expect that the same poor people you're so concerned about would be able to afford to have a surgical termination of their pregnancy in a private clinic even if it were legislated for here, so wealthy people using the plight of people who are unable to afford healthcare is really rather transparent.

Would Ireland follow Europe's Lead in Aborting the Huge Majority of Down Syndrome Pos

Comments