Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

1…172173175177178…332

Comments

  • #5222
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Water John wrote: »
    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.

    Baloney. Savita requested an abortion and was turned down. She would be alive today (and might have more children!) if not for the 8th.


  • #5223
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,159 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Water John wrote: »
    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.

    They do though, when the reason the staff are afraid is because of the 8th!


  • #5224
    Martina1991
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,548 ✭✭✭Martina1991


    Water John wrote:
    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.

    I wouldn't like to think doctors would make life threatening decisions because they were "afraid" to ask for help.

    It'd be more likely that there was no consultant available at the time of an emergency.


  • #5225
    Water John
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,831 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    They are often afraid to call in a consultant, out of hours, for fear of, getting the head eaten off them. That's a reality.


  • #5226
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Water John wrote: »
    They are often afraid to call in a consultant, out of hours, for fear of, getting the head eaten off them. That's a reality.

    If so, then they and the consultant urgently need firing.

    But that is not the subject of the thread or the upcoming Referendum.


  • Advertisement
  • #5227
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,711 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Baloney. Savita requested an abortion and was turned down. She would be alive today (and might have more children!) if not for the 8th.

    I'll be honest I get very lost regarding the whole Savita case because people from both sides always give different answers.
    Since Ireland now has access to abortion when a woman's life is at risk would she have being given an abortion if she was in the same position Today? or would the eighth amendment need to be repealed?


  • #5228
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    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.

    Did you even bother to read the H.S.E's own report on the complete cock up regarding sepsis and the delays due to the confusion over the 8th that led to Savita Halappanvar's death?

    It was her death that lead to these protocols you are banging on about as if they are followed to the letter were introduced.

    Jayzuz - HIQUA are complaining that medical staff in hospitals aren't washing their hands and you are acting like the hospitals are all over sepsis!


  • #5229
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    I'll be honest I get very lost regarding the whole Savita case because people from both sides always give different answers.
    Since Ireland now has access to abortion when a woman's life is at risk would she have being given an abortion if she was in the same position Today? or would the eighth amendment need to be repealed?

    Not until the risk to her life was 51% or over. Nothing has changed in that regard.


  • #5230
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,711 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Not until the risk to her life was 51% or over. Nothing has changed in that regard.

    So if the risk to her life was under 50% and she was out the 12 weeks time frame the repeal would have no effect?


  • #5231
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    So if the risk to her life was under 50% and she was out the 12 weeks time frame the repeal would have no effect?

    If the 8th is repealed than the 'equal right' clause is gone. The women's life will take priority and medical confusion will be eliminated. If the fetus is viable medical staff would like suggest delivery and incubation.
    Late term terminations in countries where abortion is legal are rare and generally only because there are exceptional circumstances. With the 8th gone a termination would be possible to save the woman's life without having to wait until it reaches crises (ie 51%) should the woman request it.

    Important to add that Repeal in and of it'self will not legalise abortion. That will require legislation.


  • Advertisement
  • #5232
    Kurtosis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Kurtosis


    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.

    But all medical conditions or interventions carry a potential risk to a woman's life. Obviously ranging from miniscule to major. There has to be some threshold of risk (implicit or explicit) to determine whether an intervention is made which could result in termination of the pregnancy.


  • #5233
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,637 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Kurtosis wrote: »
    But all medical conditions or interventions carry a potential risk to a woman's life. Obviously ranging from miniscule to major. There has to be some threshold of risk (implicit or explicit) to determine whether an intervention is made which could result in termination of the pregnancy.

    Exactly. Flu can kill, and pregnancy, with its extra burden on the woman's cardiovascular system, can make flu far more dangerous than if the same person were not pregnant.

    Does that mean a pregnant woman who catches flu should be allowed/advised to terminate her pregnancy?
    I suppose if we really believed that pregnancy was an issue of conflicting rights between the fetus and the woman, that might actually be the case, but the truth is we dont. It's something of a fiction really, a way of preventing women who want an abortion from getting one in all but the most extreme circumstances, that's all.

    The idea of conflicting rights has really only been invented to allow a ban on abortion without (usually) killing women when the pregnancy goes wrong. But it isnt really applied. Because it doesn't make lot of sense, as the flu example demonstrates.

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • #5234
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    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.
    No. You dont understand the 8th amendment cannot give priority to womens lives!

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #5235
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Kurtosis wrote: »
    But all medical conditions or interventions carry a potential risk to a woman's life. Obviously ranging from miniscule to major. There has to be some threshold of risk (implicit or explicit) to determine whether an intervention is made which could result in termination of the pregnancy.

    And the 8th means they also have to risk assess the unborns life as equal to the Mother

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #5236
    Da Boss
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 121 ✭✭Da Boss


    Using the excuse that abortion should be allowed because people travel to England and have it anyway is a poor excuse. People also rob and murder and take drugs, surely they should be legalized too cos people do then anyway!


  • #5237
    mrkiscool2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,159 ✭✭✭mrkiscool2


    Da Boss wrote: »
    Using the excuse that abortion should be allowed because people travel to England and have it anyway is a poor excuse. People also rob and murder and take drugs, surely they should be legalized too cos people do then anyway!
    Talking about poisoning the well. Murder and robbery have nothing to do with abortion. And I don't think taking drugs should be illegal, but that is besides the point. If you think it's okay for women to travel to England a. you are an asshat, expecting women to go through the stress and financial burden of getting an abortion in another country and b. you aren't against abortion, you are just being "Not in my back yard"


  • #5238
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,711 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    As I've said in previous posts I can't call this referendum basing on what I'm hearing at the moment.
    If it does pass will it be celebrated in Dublin Castle like when the marriage referendum was announced? or will it just be like a standard referendum.


  • #5239
    Kurtosis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,881 ✭✭✭Kurtosis


    I don't imagine so. Repeal would pave the way for a provision that virtually everyone wishes would never need to be used...so unlikely to lead to much jubilant celebration.


  • #5240
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,711 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Kurtosis wrote: »
    I don't imagine so. Repeal would pave the way for a provision that virtually everyone wishes would never need to be used...so unlikely to lead to much jubilant celebration.

    Thanks, I was just thinking some might see it as a celebrations because women were getting better rights!


  • #5241
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    As I've said in previous posts I can't call this referendum basing on what I'm hearing at the moment.
    If it does pass will it be celebrated in Dublin Castle like when the marriage referendum was announced? or will it just be like a standard referendum.

    I think it will be tight. Given that many women and men fought in 83 against it, fought in the 92 referenda and in the 2002 referendum I think many will celebrate. I dont think it will be the same tone at all.

    I think the support of Michael Martin and Leo Varadakar may possibly be the game changer bringing it over the line.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • #5242
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,711 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I think it will be tight. Given that many women and men fought in 83 against it, fought in the 92 referenda and in the 2002 referendum I think many will celebrate. I dont think it will be the same tone at all.

    I think the support of Michael Martin and Leo Varadakar may possibly be the game changer bringing it over the line.

    Leo wasn't really a surprise to be honest Michael Martin was but once the parties have free will to vote however they want I can see their being a split. Even Today the Junior minister Patrick O'Donovan came out saying he wants to keep the eighth amendment. I'd say they could be an urban rural decide with td's and a lot will try and get out of supporting either side.


  • #5243
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,223 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    Leo wasn't really a surprise to be honest Michael Martin was but once the parties have free will to vote however they want I can see their being a split. Even Today the Junior minister Patrick O'Donovan came out saying he wants to keep the eighth amendment. I'd say they could be an urban rural decide with td's and a lot will try and get out of supporting either side.

    Given where Leo was 5 years ago it is a surprise. The leadership of political parties will mostly be looked to. The marriage referendum showed us many things
    1 The people are ahead of politicians
    2 Referenda campaigns lead by civil society more than politicisns works
    3 The urban rural divide is not as divided as we think nowadays

    I also think this media manfacturing of "both sides are shrill" is fascinating. There is a huge attempt to portray repealers as bullyers, name callers, abusers etc etc when the vast majority are perfectly reasonable.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #5244
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,711 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    Given where Leo was 5 years ago it is a surprise. The leadership of political parties will mostly be looked to. The marriage referendum showed us many things
    1 The people are ahead of politicians
    2 Referenda campaigns lead by civil society more than politicisns works
    3 The urban rural divide is not as divided as we think nowadays

    Where I am in Cork I know of a TD's and county Councillors who'd be pro life unless they change there minds but I don't see this with more urban TD's to b be honest.


  • #5245
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,637 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    As I've said in previous posts I can't call this referendum basing on what I'm hearing at the moment.
    If it does pass will it be celebrated in Dublin Castle like when the marriage referendum was announced? or will it just be like a standard referendum.

    Personally, if it's passed I will be immensely relieved. Hugely so.

    i'm not sure anyone actually "celebrates" abortion though, unlike the first gay marriage for instance, so no, I dont expect there will be much actual celebration as such.

    ”I enjoy cigars, whisky and facing down totalitarians, so am I really Winston Churchill?” (JK Rowling)



  • #5246
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    As I've said in previous posts I can't call this referendum basing on what I'm hearing at the moment.
    If it does pass will it be celebrated in Dublin Castle like when the marriage referendum was announced? or will it just be like a standard referendum.

    If it passes there are celebrations planned. Maybe not on the scale of the mar eq ref but celebrations none the less. And we won't be celebrating abortion we will be celebrating winning the right to choice.


  • #5247
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    Even Today the Junior minister Patrick O'Donovan came out saying he wants to keep the eighth amendment..

    That being a fairly big story is a good indicator of where FG are at on this issue IMO. I think the great majority of the PP will ultimately row in behind repeal, just as they did with POLDPA.


  • #5248
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    Leo wasn't really a surprise to be honest Michael Martin was but once the parties have free will to vote however they want I can see their being a split. Even Today the Junior minister Patrick O'Donovan came out saying he wants to keep the eighth amendment. I'd say they could be an urban rural decide with td's and a lot will try and get out of supporting either side.

    Personally, it wouldn't matter a damn to me what a TD thought.
    If we can't make up our own minds on an issue such as this, without referencing what a TD thinks as to why we come to our decision, then that is not our own choice anyway, its based on someone else's thinking or feelings.
    This is a personal issue to me, if I'm not happy in my own mind then I won't vote on what anybody else thinks, be they priest, politician or any other type of individual.


  • #5249
    freshpopcorn
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 31,711 ✭✭✭✭freshpopcorn


    Edward M wrote: »
    Personally, it wouldn't matter a damn to me what a TD thought.
    If we can't make up our own minds on an issue such as this, without referencing what a TD thinks as to why we come to our decision, then that is not our own choice anyway, its based on someone else's thinking or feelings.
    This is a personal issue to me, if I'm not happy in my own mind then I won't vote on what anybody else thinks, be they priest, politician or any other type of individual.

    Yes, I agree with you regarding what a TD has to say on an issue. I might pay attention to them if it was an issue I was unsure of to get more information.
    I just find it interesting where TD's put themselves regarding this issue. A lot I'd say were expecting it just to be on fatal fetal abnormalities and not abortion up to twelve weeks.


  • #5250
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Let’s be honest. Leo hasn’t given his full throated support for it at all. He’s a political opportunist and thinks he knows the country is divided on it so is hedging his bets by saying he supports it in principle but he ‘isn’t pro choice’.
    It’s so greasy and transparent of him it’s kind of disgusting

    Martin and FF was a shock. A total shock. But they probably realise the country is more in favour of repealing this than keeping it and are too taking advantage of the wind speed on the ground.

    Marriage equality was a feelgood factor and campaign. Few TDs were stupid enough to go against it and most took full advantage of it. None more than Leo. What a perfect time to announce he was gay. And before your tea is cold he’s Taosieach.
    He was happy to be the spearhead and face of progressive modern Ireland on that issue.
    Now? A foot in both camps and visibly uncomfortable about it.

    He’s repulsive.


  • Advertisement
  • #5251
    De Bild
    Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭De Bild


    freshpopcorn wrote: »
    As I've said in previous posts I can't call this referendum basing on what I'm hearing at the moment.
    If it does pass will it be celebrated in Dublin Castle like when the marriage referendum was announced? or will it just be like a standard referendum.

    :D:D:D Are you a referendum specialist or just incredibly vain?!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement