....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
ABC101 wrote: » The definition of countless is a number too many to be counted. Look it up yourself because you are obviously not going to take my word for it. So yes you were right and I was wrong.... Whiteroses was expressing a figure greater than a thousand.
ABC101 wrote: » So what about the 3,500 or so women who travel to the UK for an abortion. (This number is from what I have heard on the radio, numbers released by the UK medical service apparently). How can it be justified for 3500 human lives to be extinguished (in agony) because of the 2 or 3 women who die (per year?) due to medical misadventure in Ireland?
WhiteRoses wrote: » Countless women. Off the top of my head there was Marek Thawley, Savita Halappanavar, Sheila Rodgers. Even one woman is too many.
Nick Park wrote: » How on earth is the 8th Amendment responsible for the death of Malak Thawley? She died through medical failings by a hospital during an operation to terminate an ectopic pregnancy in the early stages of pregnancy.
WhiteRoses wrote: » She would never have needed the surgery which took her life if Methotrexate was offered to her.
69 Offer systemic methotrexate† as a first-line treatment to women who are able to return for follow-up and who have all of the following: no significant pain an unruptured ectopic pregnancy with an adnexal mass smaller than 35 mm with no visible heartbeat a serum hCG level less than 1500 IU/litre no intrauterine pregnancy (as confirmed on an ultrasound scan). Offer surgery where treatment with methotrexate is not acceptable to the woman. 70 Offer surgery as a first-line treatment to women who are unable to return for follow-up after methotrexate treatment or who have any of the following: an ectopic pregnancy and significant pain an ectopic pregnancy with an adnexal mass of 35 mm or larger an ectopic pregnancy with a fetal heartbeat visible on an ultrasound scan an ectopic pregnancy and a serum hCG level of 5000 IU/litre or more. NICE Clinical Guidelines, No. 154. National Collaborating Centre for Women's and Children's Health (UK). London: RCOG; 2012 Dec.
I disagree. I have met women who have told me that their consultant explicitly told them that their hands were tied by the 8th so they had to operate and remove part of fallopian tube as to use medical management was against 8th.
Yes. Because the purpose of the surgery is to remove a part of the fallopian tube and the fetus being destroyed is a side effect. The purpose of the medication is to stop the fetal heartbeat. This is exactly the problem with the 8th. Doctors afraid to make decisions in case they face 14 years in prison.
In the case of maternity care - on the law.
Dont have one - thats why I specifically told you that posters here had given same story as I was told myself. I take it at face value. Ive no reason not to believe it.
The fallopian tube had ruptured in her case. But the poster here who was given surgery rather than medical management had part of her fallopian tube removed.
Its medically impossible that doctors are afraid to make decisions because of the 8th?
Nick Park wrote: » 'It could have been' in the same way that aliens could have been responsible. As you have admitted, you don't know that the 8th Amendment was a 'factor in' (the original claim was that it 'was responsible for') Malak Thawley's death. You, or any other poster, cannot produce a single shred of evidence to say that it caused her death. To claim on one occasion that the 8th Amendment was responsible for Malak's Thawley's death (as Whiteroses did) was an unfortunate error that can be ascribed to ignorance of the facts. To keep defending such a claim, even without any supporting evidence and in the teeth of clear evidence to the contrary, is dishonest. It is also a cruel and wrongful exploitation of a poor woman's tragic death for political gain.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I don't think we can categorically say that the 8th wasn't responsible when we know for a fact that medical professionals hands are tied when it comes to ectopic pregnancies. I know you will sneer at and dismiss any anecdotal evidence, but I know of 3 women who asked for methotrexate who were told they could not have it as the legality of prescribing it was a legal grey area and the doctors were unwilling to take the chance. While we cannot at this moment say that the 8th specifically caused her death, we can say that it impacted her maternity care. There are no circumstances where a surgery is preferable to medically managing an issue such as this one. If she had taken that tablet instead of having the surgery she might still be alive today.
Nick Park wrote: » You named three women and claimed the 8th Amendment had caused their deaths. One of the names was Malak Hawley, but you can't provide any evidence that the 8th Amendment caused her death. Now you're back-pedalling to say that you can't categorically rule it out. You also accuse someone of sneering because they are asking for evidence rather than anecdotal accounts that may or may not be relevant. Rather than keeping digging yourself deeper, let's move on to Sheila Hodgers. Sheila died in March 1983. The Referendum to introduce the 8th Amendment was in September 1983, and signed into law in October 1983. How did the Eighth Amendment cause the death of Sheila Hodgers six months before it even existed?
WhiteRoses wrote: » For a start, lose the patronising tone.
For Sheila Rodgers, the campaign was well under way for the referendum of the 8th and her husband Brendan confirmed in 2012 that doctors withdrew Sheila’s cancer treatment due to concerns that the treatment might harm the fetus.
Whether Malek died because of the 8th will be a matter of medical opinion but it cannot be denied it impacted her maternity care.
Savitas story is one of the saddest I’ve ever heard.
Nick Park wrote: » I would suggest you lose the ad hominem attacks. It would be better to address the posts rather than the perceived tone (particularly given the tone of many of the pro-abortion contributors to this thread).
You cannot blame a death on a campaign for a law that had not been voted on. There will always be campaigns for one thing or another. Sheila Hodgers death was cruel and unnecessary. It could, and should, have been averted by correct use of contraception. She was failed multiple times by a Catholic-run hospital. But it is plainly ludicrous to claim that a non-existent law killed anyone.
It is a matter of medical opinion that she died of medical misadventure, including a whole catalogue of failures in her care. But at no point have you produced any medical opinion that suggests the 8th Amendment impacted her maternity care. None. Zilch. Nada. Savita's story is indeed sad. And there is a case where there is medical opinion on both sides (some that the 8th Amendment contributed to her death, others that it did not). The primary reasons for Savita's death, according to the Arulkumaran Report, were "inadequate assessment and monitoring; failure to offer all management options to a patient; and non adherence to clinical guidelines related to the prompt and effective management of sepsis". In other words, the Eighth Amendment (or a wrong interpretation of it) may have played a role, but can hardly be pinpointed as being the primary cause of her death. Subsequent legislation has, we are told, ensured that this should not happen again. So, while Savita's death was needless and tragic, it hardly constitutes a reason to repeal the 8th. Btw, I agree wholeheartedly that one death is one death too many. However, you made the initial claim that 'countless' women have lost their lives due to the Eighth Amendment. When pressed on that, 'countless' became 'three'. Upon further examination, these three amount to one case where the 8th may have been a contributory factor among others (Savita), one where only the most diehard zealot could see a connection if they steadfastly choose to ignore any evidence (Malak), and one that occurred before the Eighth Amendment even existed (Sheila Hodgers). So, from your initial claim about 'countless' women dying because of the Eighth, we've back-pedalled so far that the back wheel of your bike must be in Australia by now! Even the evolution of an Irish politician's principles seems slow in comparison. Due you appreciate why I, and others, might take future claims that you make in this forum with a pinch of salt?
