rainbow kirby wrote: » When antenatal screening is either not being performed at all or performed at the wrong time (for example, the anomaly scan according to NICE guidelines in the UK should be performed between 18+0 and 21+6 weeks but is often performed later in Ireland or not at all) that is not best practice. Most of the techniques of Active Management of Labour (amniotomy/instant augmentation with synthetic oxytocin etc) as brought to the world by Holles Street are not considered best practice. The expectation that labour must follow a nice partogram graph is a bit ridiculous. The fact that very few of the hospitals in Ireland make use of community midwives and satellite clinics is not best practice - it has been shown that it is better for low-risk women to be cared for in community settings by midwives, freeing up obstetricians for medium and high risk cases. The fact that a woman's informed consent can be overruled simply because she is pregnant (see the Mother B case: hospital brought her to court on due date to force a CS rather than "allowing" a VBA3C attempt) is absolutely nuts and is a direct result of the 8th.
Water John wrote: » Barnacles, well there was a lot od discussion around the MAP and it being a possible abortifaciant, as it prevented the fertilised egg from implanting. Was the fertilised egg an unborn, even before implantation?
thee glitz wrote: » The size of your bathroom isn't determined by the blueprint for it, unless that plan is followed through on.
thee glitz wrote: » My point is that human life can't be considered a no-one.
thee glitz wrote: » The size of your bathroom isn't determined by the blueprint for it, unless that plan is followed through on. Maybe your neighbours nick your blueprint and it turns out their new bathroom is the size specified. DNA is a better analogy to a blueprint. What happens when you put the building blocks together is an outcome, which can be compared to what was planned, not the plan itself. My point is that human life can't be considered a no-one.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Only in the same way as the size of your bathroom on a blue print has already been determined. That is, at the moment of conception you have a blue print for building a male or female person. But that does not make it a person any more than a blueprint is a house. But yes sex is pretty much entirely determined from the moment of conception. What's your point?
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Probably not, but the salient question from his POV is, are they going to shift their vote away from FF in any numbers. If not, there's no real downside to this move for him.
seamus wrote: » there's a huge grassroots vote in the rural Catholics who won't be impressed by this.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » I hear Micheal Martin just came out in favour of repeal just now
Approval to do just about everything is needed in medical care and obstetric care; that is Medical Law 101. The only possible exception caused by the 8th relates to very rare scenarios where a maternal choice will result in death of the foetus (refusal of caesarean section in certain unusual circumstances); and even the legal position on that is in debate. Medical staff not seeking (or perhaps more usually, assuming) consent does happen, but it has nothing to do with the 8th.
7.7.1 Refusal of treatment in pregnancy The consent of a pregnant woman is required for all health and social care interventions. However, because of the constitutional provisions on the right to life of the “unborn”12, there is significant legal uncertainty regarding the extent of a pregnant woman's right to refuse treatment in circumstances in which the refusal would put the life of a viable foetus at serious risk. In such circumstances, legal advice should be sought as to whether an application to the High Court is necessary.
NuMarvel wrote: » Is the presence of a foetal heartbeat one of these scenarios?
WhiteRoses wrote: » Well maybe I should have worded it better, a better way of saying it would have been that the legality of the use of it to manage ectopic pregnancies is a grey area due to the wording of the 8th, some will take the risk, some will not.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I never suggested that the consent one was a matter of life or death. There's just a stark difference between regular medical care, where approval is needed to pretty much everything, and maternity care, where if you were to say no, they can potentially do it anyway. I don't doubt that most maternity medical staff DO seek permission, but I also don't doubt that many simply don't at all.
drkpower wrote: » Are you sure about that? I havent seen the report but this seems like a straightforward case where methotrexate was either absolutely or medically contraindicated.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
drkpower wrote: » That makes complete sense; methotrextae is medically contraindicated in certain scenarios, particularly as foetal size increases. Nothing to do with the law.
drkpower wrote: » That 2 people you know didnt get methotrexate doesn't mean that it is illegal. The more obvious reason is that methotrexate was absolutely or relatively contraindicated in the scenario. Surgery ends a pregnancy as much as methotrexate does. Propogating what you are saying is dangerous. And irresponsible. Spreading irresponsible misinformation will do nothing to get this referendum to pass. Genuinely, go and look at the publically available guidelines on this issue. Its the least you should do. As for the consent issue, it doesnt even make logical sense. How on earth would the breaking of waters (or not) touch upon the 8th? It is simply a procedure to advance the progress of labour. It has zero effect on the life of the foetus. I am not doubting, by the way, whether you were asked or not (you clearly should have been). Im simply saying that if you were not, it had zero to do with the 8th. For what its worth, i was asked (well, my wife was) and we said yes.
threescompany wrote: » Also, you say “their maternity treatment is not best practice”. I find this a vague sweeping statement.
WhiteRoses wrote: » One of the people I know wasn't even told it could be medically managed by taking a tablet, as far as they were aware at the time of procedure, surgery was the only option.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dcc54fc0153c491ede3e66aef098573d.svg)
