nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

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If the 8th is repealed than the 'equal right' clause is gone.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.

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?

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.

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!

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?

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.

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.

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.

[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!

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.

Water John

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.

Spanish Eyes

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.

Spanish Eyes

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?

Martina1991

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

There is oodles of money behind American pro life entities.

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

Water John

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.

Annasopra

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.

Annasopra

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.

Water John

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

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!!!!

david75

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.

freshpopcorn

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

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.

Edward M

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.

SusieBlue

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.

freshpopcorn

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.

Nettle Soup

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

volchitsa

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

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?