nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » There is no one there to HAVE a voice in the first place.
thee glitz wrote: » Would you agree that the sex of this no-one has already been determined?
WhiteRoses wrote: » It means in any circumstances, whatever a doctor decides to do or not do, a woman doesn't have the power to consent or withdraw consent. She has no control over her own body. For example: If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy (where the embryo develops in the fallopian tube rather than the womb), a simple tablet can be taken to cause miscarriage with little to no side effects for the woman. This tablet is available in pretty much every other progressive country. Its worth noting that an ectopic pregnancy is not viable, it will never grow into a baby and is very dangerous for the woman. However, because of the 8th amendment, this tablet is illegal because it technically causes miscarriage. So instead of taking a simple tablet, a woman has to undergo surgery to REMOVE part or all of her fallopian tube. Not only does this affect future fertility rates, its extremely invasive and painful and more importantly, totally unnecessary when a tablet can do the same job..
....... wrote: » Indeed - so do you prefer to be part of a society where women do not have full bodily autonomy and where their maternity treatment is not best practice because of the 8th Amendment and where women who do seek abortions are forced to do so in an unsafe manner by flying to a different jurisdiction or not? There is not one positive outcome of the 8th Amendment. It doesnt even stop abortions (which some people might see as positive) because all the studies show that abortion bans dont stop abortions, they just make women seek unsafe abortions or force poorer women to carry to term and have unwanted children.
drkpower wrote: » I am pro-choice and have written and lectured on the circumstances where the 8th has an impact on obstetric care. But the above is simply incorrect, assuming the tablet you are talking about is methotrexate. There is nothing illegal about methotrexate and it is used for early ectopics in Ireland. It is part of numerous hospital guidelines on the management of ectopic pregnancy available online (including the Coombe and HSE hospitals). It is absolutely or relatively contraindicated in certain clinical scenarios, sure, so it certainly isn't used in all ectopic pregnancies. But that applies to its use in any jurisdiction. The circumstances were the 8th impinges on obstetric care are all too real, but they are limited. Broad brush statements like 'in any circumstances, whatever a doctor decides to do or not do, a woman doesn't have the power to consent or withdraw consent' are both false and dangerous. And that type of approach will only be counter-productive in the debate that gathers pace over the next few months. Genuine apologies if i picked you up wrong or misinterpreted something in that post.
threescompany wrote: » Do I prefer to live in a society where Women don’t have full bodily autonomy? Of course not! Full bodily autonomy is full responsibility for ones body, right?? That’s just it, I’m completely in favor of taking responsibility of ones body and making good choices. It is other people that are not taking responsibility for their bodies & making poor choices when it comes to contraception, with a result of unwanted pregnancy? Please answer this as it would help me in understanding, but if full bodily autonomy is so important, why are people not using contraception with the result of an unwanted pregnancy? ( obviously I’m referring only to pregnancies that result from failed / no contraception). Also, you say “their maternity treatment is not best practice”. I find this a vague sweeping statement.
threescompany wrote: » ( obviously I’m referring only to pregnancies that result from failed / no contraception).
WhiteRoses wrote: » As far as I'm aware, and in purely personal experience, methotrexate wasn't offered or advised to 2 women I know (CUMH). Both had the surgery rather than the tablet. Using the methotrexate is shaky ground because it technically terminates the pregnancy, which goes against the 8th, and could have the medical staff facing prosecution. I've genuinely never heard of anyone being offered it or advised to use it to treat an ectopic pregnancy, but would be interested in seeing stats of it being used for sure. As for the consent part, I stand by it. Permission isn't sought for breaking waters, performing sweeps, the list goes on...In my own experience, my opinion wasn't asked for regarding how I wanted to deliver. While the medical staff I dealt with were absolutely lovely, I have no doubt if I had refused something they would have done it anyway.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
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.
threescompany wrote: » Also, you say “their maternity treatment is not best practice”. I find this a vague sweeping statement.
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.
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: » 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.
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.
NuMarvel wrote: » Is the presence of a foetal heartbeat one of these scenarios?
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.
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.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » I hear Micheal Martin just came out in favour of repeal just now
