Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

Edward M · 09-03-2018 1:48pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Honestise? Are you serious?

There already is abortion for choice, because of the 13th, so what is left undealt with is mainly the harmful effects on women who do not want abortions.

Why on earth is it dishonest to say that?

It isn't. But without repeal you can't have an abortion here for any reason legally.
Saying that abortion at early stage through choice will stop situations in late labour where the life or death of the mother depends on late term abortion to save her or not is dishonest though. Early abortion won't stop those situations arising. Repeal of the eighth will of course save lives of women and indeed mean better treatment for other health issues, but at that stage the pregnant woman will be long gone past the 12 week limit. So choice would not enter in to the equation, just better health care.
This could be legislated for after repeal, without including choice for all in to the equation.
The myth is that you have to have choice for this to happen.

....... · 09-03-2018 1:49pm

This post has been deleted.

Edward M · 09-03-2018 1:54pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Good, I was hoping I was not simply wrong and you were in fact working off a different link to the one you actually presented. It was either that, or I was going mad/blind

So the difference between Ireland and the UK, is 2.5. Not 2.5% but 2.5 women per 100,000? Is my maths off due to the frankly enormous Kebab I just ate or is that .0025% of a difference? (fixed not relative I mean).

I have seen people try to imply, suggest, or even outright assert, causation from correlation before.... but usually off the back of statistics that were at least significant or made an impression.

I have to admit I have never seen anyone do it off the back of a difference of .0025% before. Not even the Daily Mail who are known for it. Thanks for being the first.

I'm glad I made your day, the difference is negligible, but its a difference, despite the eighth, I would have thought it would have been the other way.
If it was the other way round do you think we might have seen it before?

recedite · 09-03-2018 2:05pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have to admit I have never seen anyone do it off the back of a difference of .0025% before. Not even the Daily Mail who are known for it. Thanks for being the first.

Its 44% extra deaths in the UK as compared to Ireland. Which puts the UK at 23rd safest country, compared to Ireland which is consistently in around 6th place.

If you don't consider those numbers statistically significant then why are you even bothering to look at the statistics? They are all based on a small number of fatalities per 100,000. You may as well just say that "childbirth is always perfectly safe, there is no significant risk in any country".

volchitsa · 09-03-2018 2:12pm

Edward M wrote: »

It isn't. But without repeal you can't have an abortion here for any reason legally.

Well, while I can see why that is a problem for one section of those who are for repeal (poor women who can't travel, mainly) I can't see what it actually changes fundamentally : where a woman has her abortion on demand doesn't actually change the fact that she has had an abortion, does it?

I'd guess that some women in the US probably travel greater distances for their abortions, and certainly have to pay more for them, but we still consider that the US has abortion on demand.

So as I say, Ireland effectively has abortion on demand in the same way as the US does : if you can't afford one, you're having a baby, but otherwise you're good.

What is dishonest, even though it is the main plank of the "Save the 8th" nonsense, is pretending that this is not effectively abortion on demand. It is, just US/liberal economy-style, not NHS-style. But we don't have the NHS here anyway.

Edward M wrote: »

Saying that abortion at early stage through choice will stop situations in late labour where the life or death of the mother depends on late term abortion to save her or not is dishonest though.

And nobody has said that.

Edward M wrote: »

Early abortion won't stop those situations arising. Repeal of the eighth will of course save lives of women and indeed mean better treatment for other health issues, but at that stage the pregnant woman will be long gone past the 12 week limit. So choice would not enter in to the equation, just better health care.

So it's not about choice, and is about repealing the 8th so that the mother's health can be the main priority if that is what she chooses.

Edward M wrote: »

This could be legislated for after repeal, without including choice for all in to the equation.
The myth is that you have to have choice for this to happen.

It could, and it is a red herring to say that the 12 week "choice" date is being proposed because of health in later pregnancy.

As I said, no-one has said that, except you.

It is actually about the risks to women who are currently ordering the abortion pill on the net, and whether we are going to pass a law which fantasizes about reality yet again, or whether we are going to grasp that nettle.

The alternative being to ignore that reality, and to choose to let some women risk their health by doing this unsupervised. So it is about health, but not about health late in pregnancy.

Edward M · 09-03-2018 2:45pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Well, while I can see why that is a problem for one section of those who are for repeal (poor women who can't travel, mainly) I can't see what it actually changes fundamentally : where a woman has her abortion on demand doesn't actually change the fact that she has had an abortion, does it?

I'd guess that some women in the US probably travel greater distances for their abortions, and certainly have to pay more for them, but we still consider that the US has abortion on demand.

So as I say, Ireland effectively has abortion on demand in the same way as the US does : if you can't afford one, you're having a baby, but otherwise you're good.

What is dishonest, even though it is the main plank of the "Save the 8th" nonsense, is pretending that this is not effectively abortion on demand. It is, just US/liberal economy-style, not NHS-style. But we don't have the NHS here anyway.

And nobody has said that.

So it's not about choice, and is about repealing the 8th so that the mother's health can be the main priority if that is what she chooses.

It could, and it is a red herring to say that the 12 week "choice" date is being proposed because of health in later pregnancy.

As I said, no-one has said that, except you.

It is actually about the risks to women who are currently ordering the abortion pill on the net, and whether we are going to pass a law which fantasizes about reality yet again, or whether we are going to grasp that nettle.

The alternative being to ignore that reality, and to choose to let some women risk their health by doing this unsupervised. So it is about health, but not about health late in pregnancy.

That's not what you said in your earlier post.
You were quite specific in you naming of Savita Hallapppinaver, a woman who couldn't get help because of the eighth, a late decision necessitated because of her health, not by her choice of not wanting the baby.
She didn't get it, not because of it being a catholic country, but because staff were fearful for their own rights if they granted such a request.
If there was no eighth amendment, she would have probably have had her wish granted.
A 12 week abortion limit would not have stopped her being in her situation in the first place though.
The fact that choice is now becoming part of the equation has nothing to do with the eighth amendment at all really, its a separate issue but still the vote on the eighth is leading to the other being legislated for by govt, despite my voting for repeal I've shown that despite abortion laws, death rates among pregnant women here compare favourably against a lot of perceived more modern countries with abortion in place.

....... · 09-03-2018 2:52pm

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-03-2018 3:57pm

recedite wrote: »

Its 44% extra deaths in the UK as compared to Ireland.

I thought that was the error someone was going to make. So I tried to pre-empt it by going back and editing my post and adding "(fixed not relative I mean)". i was not talking about the 44% relative differnce between the two figures. I was talking about how 2.5 out of 100,000 (which is the fixed difference between the two) is itself a figure of 0.0025%.

44% sounds like a large number. But 44% of a tiny number is just a tinier number. But % can be used to make things sound bigger than they are. I vaguely recall one Daily mail article on cancer screaming how something or other caused a "100% cancer risk increase". Turns out it was an increase from something like 0.000001% to 0.000002%. Hardly the headline news "100%" makes it sound like.

recedite wrote: »

If you don't consider those numbers statistically significant then why are you even bothering to look at the statistics?

Because I understand them? And I understand how people misuse them too. Generally choosing the one that SOUNDS more impressive than it actually is. 44% as a statistic would wow some people I am sure. Those who notice it is 44% of a low number however will realize otherwise.

And why are you asking ME this question? I did not bring the statistic into this at all. Someone else did, and I was evaluating the implications of it since he did not appear to bother. And I am not finding any. Though it did not help the user also moved to HIDE that statistic by providing at first (until asked) a link that did not even contain it in the first place.

recedite wrote: »

You may as well just say that

I think I will stick to what I DID say rather than pretend I might as well say something ridiculous you are pretending is equivalent when it is not. No "may as well" about it. One statement is nonsense. One is not. I made the latter. You invented the former. You can make your own statements. I will stick to mine thanks.

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-03-2018 3:58pm

Edward M wrote: »

I'm glad I made your day, the difference is negligible, but its a difference, despite the eighth

See that is the point I am making. The difference is so negligible that the "despite the eight" addition is just filler. It says nothing, adds nothing, implies nothing, reveals nothing. You just add it there to make it sound like it does.

There are SO MANY differences between a medical system in one country and another. Factors that will push that single data point (maternal deaths per 100,000 in this case) both up, and down.

So many influences on a single data point that it is merely senseless to write "despite the eighth" there are all. You might as well be writing "despite the differences between english and Irish Rashers in the breakfast".

The comparison simply does not hold. It is the wrong question to ask. What one should be doing is not looking at "Look we have pretty much the same result despite the 8th / despite the rashers" but "We have 8 women dead, is there anything we can do (getting rid of the 8th, or buying better rashers) to get that figure even lower.

It is simply the wrong way to use statistics here. Can I recommend this to you. It is an ongoing series, so only the first few chapters are out. But it might prove useful to you in the long run.

KJ · 09-03-2018 4:09pm

I will be away on holiday when the referendum takes place. Does anybody know if I can vote by post or online?

blanch152 · 09-03-2018 4:17pm

Edward M wrote: »

My point is that medicare is good here in general given the stats, childbirth here seems to have a better outcome than in a lot of other countries.
While one case is one too many, and I'm not sure how many there are here, of a needless death of a woman in childbirth, despite the eighth amendment, women seem to fare better here in childbirth than in many other so called more evolved states, where perhaps liberalisation has led to less care?

Given the way you interpret statistics, it is equally true (or untrue, if you interpret statistics the way I do) to state that because of the Eighth, more women die in childbirth in Ireland than in Canada.

Edward M · 09-03-2018 4:22pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

See that is the point I am making. The difference is so negligible that the "despite the eight" addition is just filler. It says nothing, adds nothing, implies nothing, reveals nothing. You just add it there to make it sound like it does.

There are SO MANY differences between a medical system in one country and another. Factors that will push that single data point (maternal deaths per 100,000 in this case) both up, and down.

So many influences on a single data point that it is merely senseless to write "despite the eighth" there are all. You might as well be writing "despite the differences between english and Irish Rashers in the breakfast".

The comparison simply does not hold. It is the wrong question to ask. What one should be doing is not looking at "Look we have pretty much the same result despite the 8th / despite the rashers" but "We have 8 women dead, is there anything we can do (getting rid of the 8th, or buying better rashers) to get that figure even lower.

It is simply the wrong way to use statistics here. Can I recommend this to you. It is an ongoing series, so only the first few chapters are out. But it might prove useful to you in the long run.

I'm not a TV fan, much prefer to read.
But basically I don't disagree with you, re the statistics.
I'm just showing that having the eighth in place isn't the major mother killer it can be perceived to be.
I'm going to drop the abortion debate for now anyway, I'm just perplexing myself more and more by reading some of the stuff on here.
Repeal of the eighth is a right decision IMO, but abortion on demand will change the abortion rate upwards, I don't doubt that myself, but that statistic will only become clearer with the passage of time.

....... · 09-03-2018 4:27pm

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel · 09-03-2018 4:31pm

KJ wrote: »

I will be away on holiday when the referendum takes place. Does anybody know if I can vote by post or online?

Unfortunately not. Online voting isn't available at all, and postal voting is only available in the following cases:

You will normally be required to vote in person at an official voting centre but you may be eligible for a postal vote if you are:
•An Irish diplomat or his/her spouse posted abroad
•A member of the Garda Síochána
•A whole-time member of the Defence Forces.

You may also be eligible for a postal vote if you cannot go to a polling station because:
•Of a physical illness or disability
•You are studying full time at an educational institution in Ireland, which is away from your home address where you are registered
•You are unable to vote at your polling station because of your occupation
•You are unable to vote at your polling station because you are in prison as a result of an order of a court.

Source.

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-03-2018 4:34pm

Edward M wrote: »

I'm just showing that having the eighth in place isn't the major mother killer it can be perceived to be.

But that is my point. That is exactly what your post and links is NOT showing. That simply is not how statistics works.

You are taking a single data point (deaths per 100,000) from two different countries. Two countries that have MANY differences that push that data point up and down.

You are then focusing on ONE of those factors (the 8th) and suggesting that because the data point (deaths per 100,000) between the UK and Ireland are equivalent, but one has the 8th and the other does not, then the 8th can't be having that much of an effect overall.

That is a conclusion you can not reach through the statistics you have offered. Perhaps the 8th IS pushing the Irish figure up for example, but OTHER factors in Ireland that are not present in the UK are ALSO pushing it down.

Unless you look at ALL inputs into a single data point, you can not make any assumptions about the impact of any single one from looking at nothing BUT that single data point.

As I said, this simply is not how statistics work.

Edward M wrote: »

Repeal of the eighth is a right decision IMO, but abortion on demand will change the abortion rate upwards, I don't doubt that myself, but that statistic will only become clearer with the passage of time.

Three issues there.

The first is that it seems that has not actually happened in the other places where abortion has been introduced.

The second is that it is hard to get such figures any way as we do not have an accurate figure on how many Irish women are obtaining abortions (imported pills, going to the UK, or some self done coat hanger equivilant). So we have no figures to really use as a comparison. Just some educated guesses off the back of the few incomplete figures we do have.

The third is that, like the previous issue I have taken up with you, there are MANY factors that influence such a figure more than simple legalizing abortion. HOW it is legalized, HOW it is implemented, HOW it is accessed, and HOW we re-dress the balance (such as improving sexual education and making it much earlier in the curriculum than it is, improving access to and uptake of contraception, improving the financial pressures that make people choose abortion, and much much more) ............ all impact that figure.

It is similar to how people moan about how legalizing prostitution has bad effects, then they throw their hands up and declare legalizing it is the wrong thing to do. But HOW it was legalized, regulated, and those regulations maintained and enforced is what is important, not just merely the legalization of the thing itself. And done right (which few have done) it is very much the right thing to do.

There is common ground between the pro choice and anti choice abortion debate. And that common ground is WE ALL want less abortions (ideally none) happening. We just disagree on the single point that making it illegal is the way to achieve that goal. And alas all too often in this debate we ignore or are blind to that common ground. I think we need to highlight it more often. At every chance we get, even the smallest chance.

recedite · 09-03-2018 4:59pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I thought that was the error someone was going to make....
I vaguely recall one Daily mail article on cancer screaming how something or other caused a "100% cancer risk increase". Turns out it was an increase from something like 0.000001% to 0.000002%. Hardly the headline news "100%" makes it sound like.

I'm not making any error. You just don't like to see the statistics presented in a meaningful manner.

Daily Mail was quite correct in that instance to refer to a 100% extra risk.

I'll say it again; if you don't think any of these numbers amount to any significant risk, stop harping on about them. Yes they are small numbers compared to all the safe births; we all know that.

And Ireland is statistically proven to be a lot safer than the UK, "despite" the 8th amendment. Which was the main reason for the previous poster citing the statistics in the first place.

blanch152 · 09-03-2018 5:06pm

recedite wrote: »

I'm not making any error. You just don't like to see the statistics presented in a meaningful manner.

Daily Mail was quite correct in that instance to refer to a 100% extra risk.

I'll say it again; if you don't think any of these numbers amount to any significant risk, stop harping on about them. Yes they are small numbers compared to all the safe births; we all know that.

And Ireland is statistically proven to be a lot safer than the UK, "despite" the 8th amendment. Which was the main reason for the previous poster citing the statistics in the first place.

And Canada, which has abortion available, is statistically proven to be safer than Ireland, "despite" the 8th Amendment.

Sometimes we look too much to our British cousins.

volchitsa · 09-03-2018 5:21pm

Edward M wrote: »

volchitsa wrote: »

Well, while I can see why that is a problem for one section of those who are for repeal (poor women who can't travel, mainly) I can't see what it actually changes fundamentally : where a woman has her abortion on demand doesn't actually change the fact that she has had an abortion, does it?

I'd guess that some women in the US probably travel greater distances for their abortions, and certainly have to pay more for them, but we still consider that the US has abortion on demand.

So as I say, Ireland effectively has abortion on demand in the same way as the US does : if you can't afford one, you're having a baby, but otherwise you're good.

What is dishonest, even though it is the main plank of the "Save the 8th" nonsense, is pretending that this is not effectively abortion on demand. It is, just US/liberal economy-style, not NHS-style. But we don't have the NHS here anyway.

And nobody has said that.

So it's not about choice, and is about repealing the 8th so that the mother's health can be the main priority if that is what she chooses.

It could, and it is a red herring to say that the 12 week "choice" date is being proposed because of health in later pregnancy.

As I said, no-one has said that, except you.

It is actually about the risks to women who are currently ordering the abortion pill on the net, and whether we are going to pass a law which fantasizes about reality yet again, or whether we are going to grasp that nettle.

The alternative being to ignore that reality, and to choose to let some women risk their health by doing this unsupervised. So it is about health, but not about health late in pregnancy.

That's not what you said in your earlier post.
You were quite specific in you naming of Savita Hallapppinaver, a woman who couldn't get help because of the eighth, a late decision necessitated because of her health, not by her choice of not wanting the baby.
She didn't get it, not because of it being a catholic country, but because staff were fearful for their own rights if they granted such a request.
If there was no eighth amendment, she would have probably have had her wish granted.
A 12 week abortion limit would not have stopped her being in her situation in the first place though.
The fact that choice is now becoming part of the equation has nothing to do with the eighth amendment at all really, its a separate issue but still the vote on the eighth is leading to the other being legislated for by govt, despite my voting for repeal I've shown that despite abortion laws, death rates among pregnant women here compare favourably against a lot of perceived more modern countries with abortion in place.

I'm lost here as to what you think the problem is.

The 8th, not the 12 week limit for choice, is what killed Savita. I've never said anything else.
If, after repeal, we had a 12week limit for choice and a 14 year sentence for anything later (as now, but by legislation rather than being in the constitution) then someone like Savita would probably be in as much danger as ever.

And I've never said anything else, just to be clear.

recedite · 09-03-2018 5:33pm

volchitsa wrote: »

The 8th, not the 12 week limit for choice, is what killed Savita. I've never said anything else.

If the law killed her, then why did her husband sue for negligence (on 30 different grounds) and receive an out of court cash settlement?
Why did the HSE issue an "unreserved apology" for Ms Halappanavar's death, after a report found serious failings in her care.

If the hospital had cared for her properly within the law, they wouldn't have been guilty of any negligence.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/savita-halappanavar-case-settled-for-six-figures-34534933.html

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-03-2018 5:34pm

recedite wrote: »

I'm not making any error. You just don't like to see the statistics presented in a meaningful manner.

Then in fact you are making two errors, not none.

The first, as I said, was to mistake which % I was referring to. I have corrected that one.

The second now is to think that statistics were presented in a meaningful manner. That is exactly what did NOT happen here. Statistics were presented in a way that was complete nonsense in relation to the implication the user wanted to draw from them. They simply did not say what the person seems to think they do.

So you are making up things about me (and what I do or do not like) that are simply the opposite of what is actually true about me.

recedite wrote: »

Daily Mail was quite correct in that instance to refer to a 100% extra risk.

Did I say they were wrong? No. I did not.

I said that they chose the statistic that looks like it was saying more than it actually was. That is how the media, all too often, use statistics. A change from, say, 0.000001% to 0.000002% is insignificant. It is a non-story. A statistical nothing.

But spin it (even if pedantically correct) as a 100% increase, and you can pretend you have a story.

recedite wrote: »

I'll say it again; if you don't think any of these numbers amount to any significant risk, stop harping on about them.

And I'll say it again, I did not bring them up. I am correcting someone elses use of them in a conversation with HIM. You do not get to dictate to me what conversations I can or can not have. If you want to stop discussing it, by all means do. What conversations I have in a thread with others are my business.

Secondly I was NOT referring at all to the risks. So you are presuming to tell me to shut up about a point I have not even been making in the first place. Well done.

recedite wrote: »

Yes they are small numbers compared to all the safe births; we all know that.

You have totally missed the point of my conversation with him though it seems. My point to him was nothing to do with them being small numbers. My point to him was that the minor differences can not be linked via a correlation-causation leap to anything about the 8th.

Let me break it down in simpler terminology. A Data point X can have any number of inputs that affect it. A1, A2, A3, up to AX whatever.

If two countries have a comparably equal value of X, and one country has A1 but the other does not...... you can NOT leap from that to suggest that therefore A1 must not be having all that much of an impact. To make THAT implication you would have to normalize for all the other values A2..AX.

That is, statistically, what I was discussing with the user. And that is why it was NOT "statistics presented in a meaningful manner". It was the opposite. Statistics presented in a nonsense manner.

recedite wrote: »

And Ireland is statistically proven to be a lot safer than the UK, "despite" the 8th amendment. Which was the main reason for the previous poster citing the statistics in the first place.

And it is an erroneous use of statistics for the reason I just explained above. Which YOU can stop harping on about any time you like, but you do not get to tell me to.

end of the road · 09-03-2018 6:29pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Actually no. This is is the whole point. Many of these tragic cases are a direct result of the 8th.

they were down to failures, not necessarily the 8th.

Edward M wrote: »

It isn't. But without repeal you can't have an abortion here for any reason legally.

this is not correct. abortions are provided where the mother's life is in danger and it's perfectly legal. especially since 2013.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

everything is wrong with it. the killing of human beings, and in the worst case, the potential for an industry around it like the uk seems to have. it would be a blight on our country and the areas effected if that happened.
there is nothing empowering about killing others. there are systems in place to help women with children and even allow them to contribute to society and get an education. in fact, many of them do contribute to society and very much so as well. abortion on demand is not required to help women contribute to society, it's a non-solution looking for a problem.

volchitsa · 09-03-2018 7:53pm

recedite wrote: »

If the law killed her, then why did her husband sue for negligence (on 30 different grounds) and receive an out of court cash settlement?
Why did the HSE issue an "unreserved apology" for Ms Halappanavar's death, after a report found serious failings in her care.

If the hospital had cared for her properly within the law, they wouldn't have been guilty of any negligence.
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/savita-halappanavar-case-settled-for-six-figures-34534933.html

The chairman of the investigation into her death says the law was directly responsible. I'm happy to take his word on that over yours.

Though why you think there has to be only one single factor is beyond me.
Or else you're being economical with the truth.

Edward M · 09-03-2018 8:00pm

blanch152 wrote: »

And Canada, which has abortion available, is statistically proven to be safer than Ireland, "despite" the 8th Amendment.

Sometimes we look too much to our British cousins.

Did you read the link from the guardian at all?
I'll post it again, define which is better, 6th or 9th.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-03-2018 8:13pm

Edward M wrote: »

Did you read the link from the guardian at all?
I'll post it again, define which is better, 6th or 9th.

There appears to be little or no difference. In 100,000 births there appears to be not even 1 full person in the difference. And this difference appears to be consistent as your URL seems to suggest the figures are from 2010 or before, while the figures I cited are from 2015 and also show a 1 person difference AFTER all the figures were rounded.

It would be an exercise of the most extreme pedantry to even begin equivocating over "better and worse" in terms of figures like that. It would be like asking which athlete is better when all you know about them is that one of them ran 1000km without stopping and the other ran 1000.01km without stopping. A single data point tells you nothing about "better". Though it does fill out a news paper I suppose.

But the further problem with statistics like that, as I was trying to describe to you in earlier posts, is that we are not comparing like with like. They are massively different countries, with massively different population sizes, medical ethics, medical insurance regimes, language, culture, diet, and much much more.

So it is not really possible to draw any inferences by comparing this single figure from country to country. Least of all any inferences on the impact of the 8th. A simple comparison of deaths per 100,000 pregnancies between a country with the 8th and a country with out it..... statistically and literally tells us nothing at all.

recedite · 09-03-2018 8:18pm

volchitsa wrote: »

The chairman of the investigation into her death says the law was directly responsible. I'm happy to take his word on that over yours.

Have you a link to that quote? I'd be interested to see it.

volchitsa wrote: »

Though why you think there has to be only one single factor is beyond me.

I said that her husband sued the HSE citing 30 different grounds of negligence.
Whereas you said...

volchitsa wrote: »

The 8th is what killed Savita.... I've never said anything else.

recedite · 09-03-2018 8:22pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So it is not really possible to draw any inferences by comparing this single figure from country to country. Least of all any inferences on the impact of the 8th...

Come off it.
You'd be falling over yourself making inferences if it had been the other way round, and the Irish mortality figures were higher.

Edward M · 09-03-2018 8:24pm

OK Noz, I am just wondering where the other poster got from my link to the guardian his assertion re Canada.

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-03-2018 8:29pm

recedite wrote: »

Come off it.
You'd be falling over yourself making inferences if it had been the other way round, and the Irish mortality figures were higher.

So rather than reply to what I have said.... after already having ignored one entire post from me......... you now imagine what you would WANT me to be saying in an entirely different reality? The ultimate straw man move I guess. For shame.

Nor is it accurate what you say anyway. And I can knock that down in two ways.

Firstly because there ARE other countries in the list where the Irish mortality figures ARE higher. Perhaps you missed that bit when I wrot it earlier? I can repeat it for you here.........

"And on top of that the countries that do the BEST on those figures..... also have abortion. The number 1 country in that link is greece ("Abortion in Greece has been fully legalized since January 27, 1984.[1] Abortions can be performed on-demand in hospitals for women whose pregnancies have not exceeded twelve weeks.")"

......... and yet here I am patently and demonstrably NOT making the inferences you just invented for me. Fancy that huh??? Sorry I do not fit the chalk body outline you just drew for me. But the fact there are countries without the 8th who are BOTH higher AND lower on the list makes the point for me that we should not be drawing stupid and ill informed inferences at all.

Secondly however I explained already in the thread why I would make no such inferences AT ALL and WHY I would not. I can repeat it for you happily too.......

"The comparison simply does not hold. It is the wrong question to ask. What one should be doing is not looking at "Look we have pretty much the same result despite the 8th / despite the rashers" but "We have 8 women dead, is there anything we can do (getting rid of the 8th, or buying better rashers) to get that figure even lower. "
"Even if we are good, we could be better. And saying essentially "well we are good DESPITE this bad thing over here" says nothing to me. Because my question is never "Are we good?" or "Are we better or worse than them over there?". My question is always "Where are we, and what can we still yet do better?"."

................. in other words it is entirely the wrong inference to draw in EITHER direction. It is simply the wrong way to use the figures, regardless of which way one is doing it.

So not only are you wrong about what I have been saying, you are now wrong about what you have simply made up me saying too. Well done

nozzferrahhtoo · 09-03-2018 8:50pm

Edward M wrote: »

OK Noz, I am just wondering where the other poster got from my link to the guardian his assertion re Canada.

That I can not answer, you will have to wait for the user to return for that one. What I can tell you however is nowhere in his post did he indicate that he got his assertion from your link to the guardian. So not sure where you got that assumption from.

What I can also tell you is that "maternal deaths" is only one measure of "safe" though. What about deaths of the infants during pregnancy or birth? What about compliations and the results of them have to be looked at too. Both for the mother and the baby. So the poster you mention would need to look at those statistics too to back up that assertion. One single article with one single data point is not telling you which country is safer by any means at all.

Further a country with a higher mortality rate on your list CAN still be considered "safer" if there are factors that SHOULD be making that rate higher but is not. For example Canada saw an increase in "multiple births" and "Multiple births are more likely to require medical intervention, for example induction of labour and caesarean delivery. Women expecting a multiple birth are a high risk group with increased risk of perinatal mortality and serious neonatal morbidity" and this "increase in the rate of multiple births is linked to increasing rates of use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) in older women."

Yet dealing with a 3% figure of multiple births they still have a mortality rate on your list equivalent to our own. If your list was normalised for that, and all the other differences, we might see which country really IS safer. If we bring in ART to that degree would we deal with the complications we well? Or would it push us along your links list even more? Ireland might be 6th and Canada 9th but if you were having a multiple birth as the result of ART, you would likely be wise to consider which country would be the safest to be in in that scenario.

It does not stop there. Canada might look worse on your list but one factor in "safety" is "remoteness". "Rural practitioners face challenges with geographical isolation, small populations and long distances to secondary/tertiary maternity facilities." yet despite the fact that "Canada and Australia have wide sparsely populated geographic areas. They face challenges with their workforces: obstetricians are disproportionately more likely to be located in urban areas in both countries and there are critical shortages in many areas" they still manage to only be 0.9 of a person behind us on the list??? It goes on "Similarly in Canada, mothers in more rural areas are more likely to be younger and to have maternal risk factors like youth and exposure to smoking" and "There are acute shortages in maternity care providers in rural and remote areas with providers facing long distances to travel to facilities and to access specialised equipment. Primary care is more likely to be provided by nurses in remote areas due to the absence of doctors "

See how complex statistics get, and how dangerous it is to leap to assumptions off a single data point? It might make for a news article, but it does not make for informative reading at all. And the question is for me that given all the challanges Canada has that Ireland does not (of which I only mentioned a handful, there are more) why is it we are ONLY 0.9 ahead of them??? What are they doing despite challenge we do not have, to have a position on your list so comparable with our own?

blanch152 · 09-03-2018 9:00pm

Edward M wrote: »

Did you read the link from the guardian at all?
I'll post it again, define which is better, 6th or 9th.
https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/apr/12/maternal-mortality-rates-millennium-development-goals

Last I checked Italy and Sweden had abortion.

That means the restrictive laws on abortion in Ireland are causing at least one woman's death per 100,000 births.

That is the way you use statistics.

Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

Comments