The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Annasopra · 27-01-2018 01:47PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Apologies. I don't remember it as being that close.

I must say, having been involved in that particular campaign from the start that they are two different beasties. While Mar Eq did bring out some of the nasty, that was effectively turned into a positive for the campaign because so many 'ordinary' people came out and that turned the mood. The anti side began to be seen as (can't call them) homophobic bullies.

Now - if we hear from the hundred of thousands of women who have been forced to travel for the last 30 years and their stories we might begin to see similarities.

I would also say that the Mar Eq people, myself included, haven't even begun to campaign for Repeal yet - but we will be and we have learned some valuable lessons. The question is - has Iona?

Just wait until Iona gets its Anerican buddies to pour millions into social media advertising.

Annasopra · 27-01-2018 01:48PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Is this what happens in practice though? Surely we'd have a much higher maternal mortality rate if it was?

Yes because the life of the unborn is equal to that of the mother!!!!

Annasopra · 27-01-2018 01:51PM

Water John wrote: »

Just to be clear, any sign of sepsis and medical will and should act, with medical intervention. Anything less is very poor practice, irrespective of the 8th.

You cant say "irrespective of the 8th" The 8th means the woman cannot have medical intervention until her need is greater than the unborn. It puts lives in danger.

darkdubh · 27-01-2018 01:56PM

Ralf and Florian wrote: »

How stupid is this? It's the likes of this wan (Steph F) who will swing the undecided towards voting in favour of the 8th.

https://twitter.com/Stephanenny/status/956885048044769280

Am the only person who finds it weird when Irish call out other Irish people for being white?

Bannasidhe · 27-01-2018 01:59PM

darkdubh wrote: »

Am the only person who finds it weird when Irish call out other Irish people for being white?

No. Simon Zebo and Paul McGrath find it weird too.

PopePalpatine · 27-01-2018 02:04PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Just wait until Iona gets its Anerican buddies to pour millions into social media advertising.

I'm sure that'd be plenty for a small platoon of faux-fence-sitting tone police.

Water John · 27-01-2018 03:35PM

My info from medical people, that have had to deal with such situations, is that once their is any sign of sepsis, they act and urgently.
Close ongoing monitoring of the situation is key. Sepsis places the mothers life in serious danger and would be acted upon, always.

Cabaal · 27-01-2018 03:44PM

nice_guy80 wrote: »

"This is the final frontier," the bishop declares. "If we cross it, there will be no easy way back."

A divorce will mean familys will no longer exist
:rolleyes:

Bannasidhe · 27-01-2018 03:57PM

Water John wrote: »

My info from medical people, that have had to deal with such situations, is that once their is any sign of sepsis, they act and urgently.
Close ongoing monitoring of the situation is key. Sepsis places the mothers life in serious danger and would be acted upon, always.

As the H.S.E's own report showed - this did not happen.

It's all very well having policies and procedures but unless they are actually acted upon they are useless.

Added to that -the new protocols were only introduced 5 years ago resulting in a 30% drop in mortality rates since Savita Halappanavar's but still 1 in 5 die.

Nearly one-in-five patients who develops sepsis dies of the condition, it emerged today.

This is despite a 30 per cent drop in hospital deaths from sepsis in the last five years...
... The report outlines that there were over 14,000 cases of sepsis nationally documented last year. [2016]

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/oneinfive-people-who-develop-sepsis-will-die-of-condition-36103136.html

1 in 5 of 14,000 is 2,800 deaths from sepsis in 2016.

mrmac · 27-01-2018 05:22PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

1 in 5 of 14,000 is 2,800 deaths from sepsis in 2016.

That's shocking!

How many of those 14,000 cases were pregnancy related?

Bannasidhe · 27-01-2018 05:34PM

mrmac wrote: »

That's shocking!

How many of those 14,000 cases were pregnancy related?

Trying to find out.

volchitsa · 27-01-2018 06:37PM

mrmac wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

1 in 5 of 14,000 is 2,800 deaths from sepsis in 2016.

That's shocking!

How many of those 14,000 cases were pregnancy related?

Probably not many, as there are many other causes, including simple cuts and scratches, but more usually it's people with chronic illnesses or who have had surgery.

However it's a fact that sepsis is a particular danger in pregnancy because it concerns young otherwise healthy women, and it's the pregnancy itself which means that the sepsis is likely to progress much faster than it normally would.

Treating sepsis in pregnancy like an infected finger, where a wait and see approach is probably not too risky, is sheer recklessness.

volchitsa · 27-01-2018 06:37PM

mrmac wrote: »

Bannasidhe wrote: »

1 in 5 of 14,000 is 2,800 deaths from sepsis in 2016.

That's shocking!

How many of those 14,000 cases were pregnancy related?

Probably not many, as there are many other causes, including simple cuts and scratches, but more usually it's people with chronic illnesses or who have had surgery.

However it's a fact that sepsis is a particular danger in pregnancy because it concerns young otherwise healthy women, and it's the pregnancy itself which means that the sepsis is likely to progress much faster than it normally would.

Treating sepsis in pregnancy like an infected finger, where a wait and see approach is probably not too risky, is sheer recklessness.

Nettle Soup · 27-01-2018 06:49PM

Is it me or are all pro-life folks very easy to spot? They all seem to have certain similar traits.

freshpopcorn · 27-01-2018 06:53PM

Nettle Soup wrote: »

Is it me or are all pro-life folks very easy to spot? They all seem to have certain similar traits.

I find the middle of the road hard people to spot but the people who are big into the repeal campaign and the remain campaign are generally easy to spot. However I do know a few people who were big into the marriage referendum and wouldn't be mass goers and would be young men/women and they want to keep the eighth amendment.

SusieBlue · 27-01-2018 09:11PM

Sinn Fein TD Donnchadh O’Laoighre has come out in support of removing the 8th, just watched an excellent speech he made on the subject on Facebook.

Edward M · 27-01-2018 10:07PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Sinn Fein TD Donnchadh O’Laoighre has come out in support of removing the 8th, just watched an excellent speech he made on the subject on Facebook.

What'd he say about the choice argument?
Not being smart now, genuine question, I'd like the eighth repealed too.

david75 · 27-01-2018 10:14PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I find the middle of the road hard people to spot but the people who are big into the repeal campaign and the remain campaign are generally easy to spot. However I do know a few people who were big into the marriage referendum and wouldn't be mass goers and would be young men/women and they want to keep the eighth amendment.

^^obvious youth defence sleeper account post.

freshpopcorn · 27-01-2018 10:27PM

david75 wrote: »

^^obvious youth defence sleeper account post.

The basic point of my post is you can't guarantee that somebody is pro-life or Pro choice just based on how they voted in the marriage referendum and if you want this repealed you got to vote.

david75 · 27-01-2018 10:30PM

freshpopcorn wrote: »

The basic point of my post is you can't guarantee that somebody is pro-life or Pro choice just based on how they voted in the marriage referendum and if you want this repealed you got to vote.

I was joking but the body of the text is a tactic currently being employed by pro life in a lot of places to try work into people’s heads that it’s ok to vote against it.
It’s a new tactic at least but it’s transparent and not as obvious yet weirdly insidious.

Annasopra · 27-01-2018 10:53PM

Water John wrote: »

My info from medical people, that have had to deal with such situations, is that once their is any sign of sepsis, they act and urgently.
Close ongoing monitoring of the situation is key. Sepsis places the mothers life in serious danger and would be acted upon, always.

Yes but they cant act until the mothers life is more than 50% in danger!!!!

Water John · 27-01-2018 10:57PM

Where are you digging this 50% up from? Any sepsis is potentially lethal. Woman's life is at risk. You have to intervene, medically.
Interpreting it any other way is just, poor medical practice.

Annasopra · 27-01-2018 10:59PM

david75 wrote: »

I was joking but the body of the text is a tactic currently being employed by pro life in a lot of places to try work into people’s heads that it’s ok to vote against it.
It’s a new tactic at least but it’s transparent and not as obvious yet weirdly insidious.

Yep. And I have seen all these fake LGBT4LIFE social media accounts. Its bizarre because they are sharing stuff from Iona and pals!

I agree on this. And there is a lot of "oh well it was obvious the marriage referendum would pass but repeal campaigners will be shocked"

The other tactic I have seen is distancing from the Catholic Church coming from rabid Catholics.

Annasopra · 27-01-2018 11:00PM

Water John wrote: »

Where are you digging this 50% up from? Any sepsis is potentially lethal. Woman's life is at risk. You have to intervene, medically.
Interpreting it any other way is just, poor medical practice.

The foetus has an equal right to life of the pregnant woman therefore medics have to wait until the womans life is more in danger.

Water John · 27-01-2018 11:08PM

You are incorrect, woman's live has priority and once there is risk to her life, medics must act.
You don't seem to understand sepsis, which is a virulent, possibly fatal, infection.
It's very presence puts the woman's life at risk and must be acted on, without delay.
Nobody is waiting for a % risk to be analysed. Doctor, should and would be before the Medical Council for gross negligence.

Spanish Eyes · 27-01-2018 11:08PM

There is oodles of money behind American pro life entities.

They are staying quiet for now, but wait for it.

Martina1991 · 27-01-2018 11:08PM

Joeytheparrot wrote:

Yes but they cant act until the mothers life is more than 50% in danger!!!!

So doctors have to wait until a woman is 50% septic?

Septicaemia progresses very rapidly and must be treated immediately. Along with other conditions such as HELLP, haemorrhage, high blood pressure etc.

I don't know why you're saying things that you can't back up medically.

Spanish Eyes · 27-01-2018 11:10PM

Pills are available for women to terminate at home without any medical supervision within the twelve week window.

That won't change, so the game is up.

Has anyone heard of an arrest or confiscation of these drugs yet?

Spanish Eyes · 27-01-2018 11:29PM

Water John wrote: »

You are incorrect, woman's live has priority and once there is risk to her life, medics must act.
You don't seem to understand sepsis, which is a virulent, possibly fatal, infection.
It's very presence puts the woman's life at risk and must be acted on, without delay.
Nobody is waiting for a % risk to be analysed. Doctor, should and would be before the Medical Council for gross negligence.

I would not trust them to act in favour of a woman right now, she is just a womb in many eyes going on the current laws. Well we know what happened when they didn't.

We don't know how many mother's lives have been lost due to sepsis and inability to act to save her apart from Ms Savita do we?

The laws are opaque, and medics must be terrified of breaking such current laws.

Water John · 27-01-2018 11:39PM

Most of these misadventures occur when staff are afraid to call in senior doctors, when in doubt. Not because of constitution or legislation.
Largely have nothing to do with the current debate.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments