Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Nick Park · 01-03-2018 09:55AM

volchitsa wrote: »

Sectioned abusively though. Which I think I said earlier.

You seem to think a psychiatrist announcing that he is using the MHA makes him entitled to use it. But it doesn't, it's very strictly limited, and the girl did not fill the criteria. For one thing, she did not have an identifiable mental illness.

I don't seem to think any such thing. Whether he used it abusively or not, or whether he was entitled to use it, is neither here nor there. I have not commented on that one way or the other.

What I have said is that he did section the girl under the MHA - whether he was correct in doing so or not.

Therefore your claim that that people are somehow being sectioned under the POLDPA rather than the MHA is false.

Your claim that anyone was sectioned for wanting an abortion is also false. Wanting an abortion may have led the girl to claim that she was suicidal, but it was her suicidality, not her desire for an abortion, that caused her (rightly or wrongly) to be sectioned.

You also claimed that Ireland is the only country that uses mental hospitals to lock up non-criminal citizens. That claim is massively false

So, all in all, a whole bucketful of false claims.

....... · 01-03-2018 10:28AM

This post has been deleted.

Nick Park · 01-03-2018 10:54AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not ignoring the fact that she was locked up. I've not commented one way or the other whether locking someone up for being suicidal is an abomination or is good psychiatric practice.

But it is untrue that she was locked up 'because she wanted an abortion'. Wanting an abortion was the reason why she made a claim to a psychiatrist that she was suicidal, but it was not the reason why she was locked up.

This is simple logic, and shouldn't be too hard follow. I could use examples to point out how this applies in other areas of life, but past experience with you in this forum leads me to think that would be a waste of time. I've done that before and you just say 'I'm not interested in that' and continue to make unsubstantiated claims.

volchitsa · 01-03-2018 11:01AM

Nick Park wrote: »

I'm not ignoring the fact that she was locked up. I've not commented one way or the other whether locking someone up for being suicidal is an abomination or is good psychiatric practice.

But it is untrue that she was locked up 'because she wanted an abortion'. Wanting an abortion was the reason why she made a claim to a psychiatrist that she was suicidal, but it was not the reason why she was locked up.

This is simple logic, and shouldn't be too hard follow.

It's exactly why she was locked up : she didn't go to a psychiatrist for help with depression, she went because that is the correct procedure for someone in her position who wanted an abortion. She fulfilled the criteria for an abortion under the POLDPA but instead of that, a completely different law was used to imprison her.

She did notfulfill the criteria for being sectioned under that law, and had not asked for help that required that law to be invoked.

It is exactly what psychiatrists said would not and could not happen if a mental health sectiopn were put in the POLDPA, because that would be illegal and abusive.

Nick Park · 01-03-2018 11:32AM

volchitsa wrote: »

It's exactly why she was locked up : she didn't go to a psychiatrist for help with depression, she went because that is the correct procedure for someone in her position who wanted an abortion. She fulfilled the criteria for an abortion under the POLDPA but instead of that, a completely different law was used to imprison her.

According to the first psychiatrist, she didn't meet the criteria for an abortion under the POLDPA, namely that there is "a real and substantial risk" of her committing suicide, and that an abortion would be the only way for that risk to be averted.

Whether he was right or wrong in that assessment is a matter of opinion. Psychiatrists sometimes disagree, sometimes err, and that is why the POLDPA has a review procedure.

She did notfulfill the criteria for being sectioned under that law, and had not asked for help that required that law to be invoked.

The first psychiatrist obviously felt that she did meet the criteria of the MHA, otherwise he would not have invoked it.

Whether he was right or wrong in his diagnosis, he acted within the law. Getting a diagnosis wrong is not illegal. It is not necessary for a suicidal person to ask for help under the MHA in order for it to be invoked to section somebody. The process can be initiated by any concerned member of the public who is worried that there is a serious likelihood of the person concerned causing immediate serious harm to himself or herself or to other persons.

It is exactly what psychiatrists said would not and could not happen if a mental health sectiopn were put in the POLDPA, because that would be illegal and abusive.

I agree with you (but for different reasons) that the section of the POLDPA dealing with suicidality is not fit for purpose.

....... · 01-03-2018 11:37AM

This post has been deleted.

Nick Park · 01-03-2018 11:59AM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No personal attack at all. Simply commenting on what you post, which is the purpose of a discussion board.

In post 3311, in direct response to a question you asked me, I explained why it is not so simple as saying that granting an abortion will prevent suicide if the person claims that their pregnancy is making them suicidal. I pointed out that suicidality often has underlying factors and may continue after the initially claimed 'cause' is removed. I did this by using a real life example of a girl who claimed she was suicidal because her boyfriend left her, but after he got back with her she then committed suicide over another issue entirely.

Rather than engage with this, you replied (in post 3314): Thats all grand Nick but I specifically referred to the case where having to continue a pregnancy was going to cause someone to want to commit suicide - nothing about boyfriends etc...

Based on that, I think it's perfectly reasonable for me to explain that my reason for refraining from entering into any kind of detailed discussion with yourself is because it would be a waste of time. That hardly constitutes a personal attack. It is simply an acknowledgement that you are unwilling or unable to engage in discussion to any depth.

....... · 01-03-2018 12:06PM

This post has been deleted.

volchitsa · 01-03-2018 12:07PM

Nick Park wrote: »

According to the first psychiatrist, she didn't meet the criteria for an abortion under the POLDPA, namely that there is "a real and substantial risk" of her committing suicide, and that an abortion would be the only way for that risk to be averted.

Whether he was right or wrong in that assessment is a matter of opinion. Psychiatrists sometimes disagree, sometimes err, and that is why the POLDPA has a review procedure.

The first psychiatrist obviously felt that she did meet the criteria of the MHA, otherwise he would not have invoked it.

Whether he was right or wrong in his diagnosis, he acted within the law. Getting a diagnosis wrong is not illegal. It is not necessary for a suicidal person to ask for help under the MHA in order for it to be invoked to section somebody. The process can be initiated by any concerned member of the public who is worried that there is a serious likelihood of the person concerned causing immediate serious harm to himself or herself or to other persons.

I agree with you (but for different reasons) that the section of the POLDPA dealing with suicidality is not fit for purpose.

Or maybe s/he is pro life, and was never going to allow anyone to have an abortion.

You are ignoring how the MHA works, which is that it is not enough to feel that someone is depressed etc, and also that there is no alternative pathway in the POLDPA which invokes the MHA instead of an abortion. It doesn't matter that the psychiatrist felt there were other solutions - locking someone up using the MHA if they are not suffering from a diagnosed mental illness is not one of those options.

The POLDPA may well be bad law in appearing to mean that someone can apply for an abortion under it and then find themselves swept up by the MHA as a way of refusing to grant the abortion they have requested using the correct procedures. That doesn't change the fact that the MHA does not function as a subsidiary option to POLDPA and that this is not a legal use of the MHA. No matter how much you want it to be.

Nick Park · 01-03-2018 01:00PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Or maybe s/he is pro life, and was never going to allow anyone to have an abortion.

Such speculation would appear to be pointless. Maybe the subsequent psychiatrist was pro-abortion? We have no way of knowing, do we?

The salient point is that the girl was sectioned under the MHA, contrary to your claim that she wasn't. You seem to be trying to create a lot of deflection to avoid admitting that you made that false claim, or indeed retracting your false statement about Ireland being the only country that uses mental hospitals to lock up non-criminal citizens.

Actually I wouldn't bother keeping labouring the point (given some of the other whoppers posted on here by pro-repeal posters) if it weren't for the fact that you then went on to accuse JC of making things up, while refusing to retract your own false statements.

You are ignoring how the MHA works, which is that it is not enough to feel that someone is depressed etc, and also that there is no alternative pathway in the POLDPA which invokes the MHA instead of an abortion. It doesn't matter that the psychiatrist felt there were other solutions - locking someone up using the MHA if they are not suffering from a diagnosed mental illness is not one of those options.

More deflection. I'm not ignoring any such thing. I've repeatedly avoided passing my judgement on a professional difference of opinion between psychiatrists. I've simply pointed out that this girl was, rightly or wrongly, sectioned under the MHA, contrary to your assertions.

The POLDPA may well be bad law in appearing to mean that someone can apply for an abortion under it and then find themselves swept up by the MHA as a way of refusing to grant the abortion they have requested using the correct procedures. That doesn't change the fact that the MHA does not function as a subsidiary option to POLDPA and that this is not a legal use of the MHA. No matter how much you want it to be.

I've never said that I want the MHA to function as anything - I've simply stated facts. Inconvenient facts. I certainly agree that the POLDPA is bad law - I stated that before it was passed and I haven't changed my mind.

This case certainly demonstrates that psychiatry is not an exact science. In the space of a few days this girl was diagnosed as suicidal, as mentally ill, then as being not mentally ill, then as not being suicidal.

Coming back to the topic of this thread. The fact that this case is being raised in this thread demonstrates the lie that the coming Referendum is just about abortions up to 12 weeks and that we are being hysterical in warning about increased abortions during later stages in pregnancy.

In the case we are discussing, the girl was over 6 months pregnant. Her unborn child was viable and sentient. If her child had been stillborn at that point of pregnancy it would have been issued with a death certificate and a PPS number. The final diagnosis was that she was neither suicidal nor mentally ill, meaning that neither the POLDPA or the MHA should have been invoked. She didn't commit suicide. She had the baby three weeks later, and at last report the girl was living with her mother and caring for her newborn baby.

J C · 01-03-2018 01:21PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

She was sectioned for her own safety, under the MHA. Happens all the time ... only the person usually isn't pregnant.

J C · 01-03-2018 01:38PM

Nick Park wrote: »

This case certainly demonstrates that psychiatry is not an exact science. In the space of a few days this girl was diagnosed as suicidal, as mentally ill, then as being not mentally ill, then as not being suicidal.

Coming back to the topic of this thread. The fact that this case is being raised in this thread demonstrates the lie that the coming Referendum is just about abortions up to 12 weeks and that we are being hysterical in warning about increased abortions during later stages in pregnancy.

In the case we are discussing, the girl was over 6 months pregnant. Her unborn child was viable and sentient. If her child had been stillborn at that point of pregnancy it would have been issued with a death certificate and a PPS number. The final diagnosis was that she was neither suicidal nor mentally ill, meaning that neither the POLDPA or the MHA should have been invoked. She didn't commit suicide. She had the baby three weeks later, and at last report the girl was living with her mother and caring for her newborn baby.

Thanks Nick, totally agree. A truly good news story ... that has been grotesquely twisted by the pro-abortion people second guessing the doctors involved and demanding that an abortion should have been done in this case.

Quite scandalous that a 6 month unborn baby (i.e.viable outside the womb ... and with a few extra weeks, likely to survive with no ill effects) could have possibly been killed in such circumstances.
... the shouting match by the pro-abortion people demanding why this case was managed to ensure that both the mother and her 6 month old child survived, tells us that they will not be satisfied with 12 weeks ... and will demand abortion with no gestational limit ... for cases like this ... where it cannot possibly be justified.

12 weeks is only the start of it ... as the reaction to this case shows.
The main thing that saved this unborn child was the 8th and its requirement to balance the life of the unborn child ... if it had been repealed ... this 6 month unborn child would likely now be dead.
The politicians will have political cover for this with the incredible, 61% of the Citizens Assembly vote for no gestational limit ... where there is " Real and substantial risk to the life of the woman by suicide."

....... · 01-03-2018 02:01PM

This post has been deleted.

....... · 01-03-2018 02:04PM

This post has been deleted.

volchitsa · 01-03-2018 02:34PM

I really wonder whether there is any limit to the human rights abuses and law breaking that some people will condone as long as the results suit their personal opinions.

She was abusively sectioned. The fact that the psychiatrist said he was using the MHA doesnt make it so, he did not do so in accordance with the Act itself and therefore the MHA did not apply.

For example : she was a minor. Her parents should therefore have been made aware of the need to section her - actually they should have given their permission, unless there were exceptional reasons. Instead her mother believed she was bringing her to have an abortion. For that reason alone, and especially in the absence of any established diagnosis of mental illness, removing her liberty was a massive abuse of her human rights.

But clearly some people here are prepared to condone any abuse carried out on a woman, or child, as long as it prevents her having an abortion.

volchitsa · 01-03-2018 02:39PM

Oh and by the way, the claim that she was 6 months pregnant is pure speculation, since her identity was not released to the press. Remember all the "mistakes" about the Ms Y case, where the same newspaper that printed that this child was 6 months pregnant also wrote that Ms Y had not cone to the attention of the HSE until shortly before the POLDPA was invoked concerning her. Completely untrue, and only one of their "mistakes" about the case - all of which wrongly supported the HSE's case.

But even if she was at six months, first off, there is no gestational limit in the POLDPA, and more worryingly, we don't know what happened before that point, and what efforts she had unsuccessfully made before that to get an abortion.

Like Ms Y.

J C · 01-03-2018 02:51PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I really wonder whether there is any limit to the human rights abuses and law breaking that some people will condone as long as the results suit their personal opinions.

... and so do I, when it comes to killing unborn children.
The 'human rights' you talk about is the so-called 'right' to kill your own child. ... which is bizzarrely oblivious to the 'human rights' of the unborn Human Being that is being killed.

volchitsa · 01-03-2018 03:01PM

J C wrote: »

... and so do I, when it comes to killing unborn children.
The 'human rights' you talk about is the so-called 'right' to kill your own child. ... which is bizzarrely oblivious to the 'human rights' of the unborn Human Being that is being killed.

The law allows it though, so what you think of it doesn't really matter.
The law doesn't allow children, or even women, to be locked up using the MHA instead of getting the abortion they requested, as the POLDPA allows them to. That is not part of the POLDPA, and not part of the MHA either.

Especially as the 13th amendment allows women to have abortions without being suicidal, and yet you seem prepared to put up with that. Why does respect for the law seem to take priority for you in one case but not the other?

end of the road · 01-03-2018 03:06PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

she was not locked up for wanting an abortion.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

it is likely that she didn't fit the criteria to be given an abortion, and therefore wasn't.

J C · 01-03-2018 03:07PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Oh and by the way, the claim that she was 6 months pregnant is pure speculation, since her identity was not released to the press. Remember all the "mistakes" about the Ms Y case, where the same newspaper that printed that this child was 6 months pregnant also wrote that Ms Y had not cone to the attention of the HSE until shortly before the POLDPA was invoked concerning her. Completely untrue, and only one of their "mistakes" about the case - all of which wrongly supported the HSE's case.

... and all these processes being done behind closed doors and with no public oversight is also worrying ... when we are being asked to effectively give a 'blank cheque' to do whatever they want ... if the 8th is repealed.

volchitsa wrote: »

But even if she was at six months, first off, there is no gestational limit in the POLDPA,

There is already abortion with no gestational limit on the Irish Statute Books ... and we are accused of 'scaremongering' when we point out that 12 weeks unrestricted abortion will be just the beginning, if the 8th is repealed.
The POLDPA allows an unborn child to be killed right up to the point of birth at nine months ... for all of the issues where the 8th allows abortion.

Because the 8th is in place, the law critically asks doctors to certify "in their reasonable opinion (being an opinion formed in good faith which has
regard to the need to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable) that risk can only be averted by carrying out the medical procedure."

If the 8th is repealed, this requirement to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable, will be removed ... thereby allowing abortion (rather than a Caesarian being required) past the point of viability.

end of the road · 01-03-2018 03:15PM

volchitsa wrote: »

It's exactly why she was locked up : she didn't go to a psychiatrist for help with depression, she went because that is the correct procedure for someone in her position who wanted an abortion. She fulfilled the criteria for an abortion under the POLDPA but instead of that, a completely different law was used to imprison her.

She did notfulfill the criteria for being sectioned under that law, and had not asked for help that required that law to be invoked.

It is exactly what psychiatrists said would not and could not happen if a mental health sectiopn were put in the POLDPA, because that would be illegal and abusive.

she was not locked up for wanting an abortion.

volchitsa wrote: »

Or maybe s/he is pro life, and was never going to allow anyone to have an abortion.

You are ignoring how the MHA works, which is that it is not enough to feel that someone is depressed etc, and also that there is no alternative pathway in the POLDPA which invokes the MHA instead of an abortion. It doesn't matter that the psychiatrist felt there were other solutions - locking someone up using the MHA if they are not suffering from a diagnosed mental illness is not one of those options.

The POLDPA may well be bad law in appearing to mean that someone can apply for an abortion under it and then find themselves swept up by the MHA as a way of refusing to grant the abortion they have requested using the correct procedures. That doesn't change the fact that the MHA does not function as a subsidiary option to POLDPA and that this is not a legal use of the MHA. No matter how much you want it to be.

we don't know that the first psychiatrist was pro-life or the second pro-whatever. it's irrelevant anyway as there is no chance that a psychiatrist would be able to use sectioning as a way to stop someone from having an abortion. it would have come up in the review and they would be out of a job. so, it didn't happen. the young lady was sectioned, but not for reasons that had anything to do with wanting an abortion.

volchitsa wrote: »

I really wonder whether there is any limit to the human rights abuses and law breaking that some people will condone as long as the results suit their personal opinions.

She was abusively sectioned. The fact that the psychiatrist said he was using the MHA doesnt make it so, he did not do so in accordance with the Act itself and therefore the MHA did not apply.

For example : she was a minor. Her parents should therefore have been made aware of the need to section her - actually they should have given their permission, unless there were exceptional reasons. Instead her mother believed she was bringing her to have an abortion. For that reason alone, and especially in the absence of any established diagnosis of mental illness, removing her liberty was a massive abuse of her human rights.

But clearly some people here are prepared to condone any abuse carried out on a woman, or child, as long as it prevents her having an abortion.

okay, was this psychiatrist sacked from his job? from what i understand no he wasn't, because he made a diagnosis in good faith and took what he felt was the appropriate action, rightly or wrongly.

J C · 01-03-2018 03:20PM

volchitsa wrote: »

The law allows it though, so what you think of it doesn't really matter.

Something that people should remember when they come to vote on the repeal of 8th ... this will be the only time your opinion will matter ...
... because, if you vote for repeal ... they will do whatever they like, when it comes to abortion ... and the fact that they have legislated for abortion with no gestational limits, when they got the chance, with the POLDPA ... tells us all we need to know about what will happen if the 8th is repealed.

end of the road · 01-03-2018 03:20PM

volchitsa wrote: »

The law allows it though, so what you think of it doesn't really matter.

the law specifically allows abortion in exceptional circumstances. if someone doesn't fit the criteria, they won't get an abortion in ireland.

volchitsa wrote: »

The law doesn't allow children, or even women, to be locked up using the MHA instead of getting the abortion they requested, as the POLDPA allows them to. That is not part of the POLDPA, and not part of the MHA either.

exactly, hence it doesn't happen. people don't get locked up for wanting an abortion, they get sectioned under the mental health act if they are suicidal and are a danger to themselves or others, and that is only as a very last resort.

volchitsa wrote: »

Especially as the 13th amendment allows women to have abortions without being suicidal, and yet you seem prepared to put up with that. Why does respect for the law seem to take priority for you in one case but not the other?

again you are mixing up the law. the 13th doesn't allow women to have abortions, it simply states that the state cannot interfere with pregnant women traveling. it's about protecting innocent pregnant women who aren't procuring abortions from being prevented from traveling because of the non-innocent who wish to kill the unborn, who's ability to travel to kill the unborn is simply a bi-product of the law. the consolation for that, as we can't stop people traveling, is that those procuring abortion on demand have to travel and fund that themselves.

J C · 01-03-2018 03:37PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why should there be no gestational limits for killing an unborn child, even when the mother's life is at risk? ... why shouldn't a caesarian be performed if the child is beyond the point of viability ... thereby saving both the mother and her child?

The four methods for late term abortions are:-
Dilation and evacuation (D&E)
Early labor induction (sometimes called "induction abortion")
Intact dilation and extraction (IDX or D&X), sometimes referred to as "partial-birth abortion"
Hysterotomy abortion

Late term abortions require the killing of the baby and its extraction ... which is no higher risk procedure, than a caesarian and a live birth, once the point of viability is reached.

Nick is correct to point out that the people, who have already legislated for abortion up to 9 months, when the mother's life is at risk, are the same people who are now asking us to allow them to legislate for abortion on demand, when nothing is wrong with the pregnancy.

All four late abortion techniques involve the killing of the unborn baby before it is delivered ... with Hysterotomy abortion being effectively a Caesarian ... only with the child being killed before it is removed from the uterus.
It would be murder to kill it, if it was removed alive, beyond the point of viability.

In America, late term partial birth abortions (where the baby is killed just before delivery in the birth canal) was outlawed by the the Partial Birth Abortion Act ... and the Born Alive Act outlaws leaving a child to die if it survives a late term induction abortion.

We have none of these protections, where abortions are performed under the POLDPA.
The only protection (and a critical one) in the POLDPA is a requirement for the doctor 'to preserve unborn human life as far as practicable' ... (and this requirement is only there because of the 8th) and it will be removed if the 8th is repealed.

....... · 01-03-2018 04:33PM

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 01-03-2018 04:41PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

both are equally important bar where the mother's life is under threat. having other children to take care of or being the bread winner is not a valid reason to allow the killing of the unborn outside medically necessary circumstances, when she can put the child up for adoption.
jc and nick are giving us the likely realities and long term possibilities and potentials, along with many facts in relation to claims made. we cannot say that there won't be abortion with no limits, so we have to insure such can't happen by voting no to repeal, and putting out all possibilities and potentials however remote, to insure people can make an informed vote, whichever way they vote. the pro-life aren't involved in scaremongering as it isn't in anyone's interests to scaremonger. it's in all our interests however that all possibilities and potentials however remote, are debated and put out to the people, as this may be the last time the people will be able to vote on the abortion issue.

J C · 01-03-2018 05:23PM

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Why should there be no gestational limits for killing an unborn child, even when the mother's life is at risk?

wrote:

.......
Because the mother is more important than the child. The mother may have other children to take care of, may have a partner or husband, may be the breadwinner for the family etc.

What has that to do with her life being at risk? ... or are you saying that there should be no gestational limit for abortion on demand, as well?

wrote:

.......
Yourself and Nick are going off down a makey uppey slippery slope suggesting that there will be abortion on demand with no gestational limits. No one has suggested that.

Abortion with no gestational limits is already in Irish Law in the POLDPA where:-
1. There is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life from a physical illness.
2. There is an immediate risk of loss of the woman’s life from a physical
illness.
3. There is a real and substantial risk of loss of the woman’s life by way of
suicide.

There should be gestational limits for all abortions (including the three cases above).

wrote:

.......There is no country where it is currently the case, and that you seem to think repealing the 8th would lead to it is either naive, wilful scaremongering or just plain stupidity.

Ireland already has abortion with no gestational limit in the POLDPA. However crucially, the POLDPA requires doctors to consider the life of the unborn child (in accordance with the 8th) in making their decision ... and this means that Caesarians will be performed, instead of abortions, once the unborn child has reached viability. Something which basic Human descency demands.
However, this protection will be automatically removed if the 8th is repealed. This alone is sufficient reason to retain the 8th.

wrote:

.......What is the story with the random bolding in your posts? its like reading badly written religious pamphlets.

It isn't random ... I embolden for emphasis and clarity. That is what text embolding is for.

....... · 01-03-2018 06:00PM

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 01-03-2018 06:11PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

no it hasn't. even if she was given an abortion she would possibly have been sectioned as the original psychiatrist rightly or wrongly, felt it was the best way to help her.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the protection doesn't need to be removed as it isn't causing those problems. bad management and bad interpretation of it is what is causing the problems. that can easily be solved without removing the vital protections for the unborn.

volchitsa · 01-03-2018 06:26PM

end of the road wrote: »

no it hasn't. even if she was given an abortion she would possibly have been sectioned as the original psychiatrist rightly or wrongly, felt it was the best way to help her.

the protection doesn't need to be removed as it isn't causing those problems. bad management and bad interpretation of it is what is causing the problems. that can easily be solved without removing the vital protections for the unborn.

"Wrongly" matters here, because she did fit the criteria for an abortion (suicidal because of her pregnancy) and was not asking for any treatment under MHA.

The psychiatrist agreed that she fulfilled the criteria for PLDPA, but then, instead of applying POLDPA he went off on a solo run and misapplied an entirely separate act, for which she needed to be both suicidal and diagnosed with a specific mental illness.

He also failed to inform her family, which as she was a minor he was obliged to do, never mind getting parental consent. Yet at the same time he used her mother to take her to the unit where she was interned, allowing the woman to believe thqt she was taking her daughter for an abortion.

Those are all very serious breaches of MHA and the rules governing when someone's liberty may legally be removed from them. So serious that a psychiatrist asked about whether this sequence of events could potentially happen said it would simply not be possible.

So in effect, she asked for POLDP to be invoked, she fulfilled the criteria, but instead, in a catch 22 which is not going to be found legal if she takes the HSE to court, she was interned under a different law for which she did not fulfill the criteria.

This is about the third time I've pointed this out, but if necessary I shall keep on doing so for as long as posters rewrite reality and the law to suit their own desires.

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments