Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution
Options
Comments
-
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.
What happened to Canada?
Savita died in 2012, has anyone died in the same circumstances since, I haven't heard of one since thankfully.
What are you basing your figure on, based on the number of births here since we should have had at least one more case?0 -
What happened to Canada?
Savita died in 2012, has anyone died in the same circumstances since, I haven't heard of one since thankfully.
What are you basing your figure on, based on the number of births here since we should have had at least one more case?
It really doesn't matter what happened to Canada. As long as there is one country with abortion safer than Ireland, your statistical point is rubbish.
As for how many, as I don't believe that maternity birth stats have any connection or relevance to the number of abortions, why would I defend any figures, which is only as nonsensical as yours?0 -
Have you a link to that quote? I'd be interested to see it.
Well, for example here : Medic 'Savita died as a result of abortion lawsProfessor Arulkumaran made the comment as he said the Eighth Amendment is “not working” and declared his “surprise” it has taken five years since Savita’s death for a discussion on its removal to take place.
Prof Arulkumaran said the reality is Savita died because of the abortion laws.
Asked specifically by Independent senator Lynn Ruane “if the presence of the Eighth Amendment cost Savita her life”, Prof Arulkumaran said: “It was very clear the things holding the hands of physicians was the legal issue.I said that her husband sued the HSE citing 30 different grounds of negligence.
Whereas you said...
So? The point is that none of that would have been necessary if she had been alllowed an abortion when she asked for it.
Again Prof Aulkumaran says so.“She did have sepsis. However, if she had a termination in the first days as requested, she would not have had sepsis. We would never have heard of her and she would be alive today,” he said0 -
It really doesn't matter what happened to Canada. As long as there is one country with abortion safer than Ireland, your statistical point is rubbish.
As for how many, as I don't believe that maternity birth stats have any connection or relevance to the number of abortions, why would I defend any figures, which is only as nonsensical as yours?
Actually if you look back I provided links with figures, I didn't put up my figures, you did.
You're weasling away from your post relating to my link that you said (mistakenly) showed Canada was safer than here in terms of maternal death, you then switched to Italy and Sweden, included a figure you got from my link to say that the eighth was the cause of at least one death in 100000.
That figure is your claim, I haven't seen any link to prove its not just your conjecture.0 -
You're weasling away from your post relating to my link that you said (mistakenly) showed Canada was safer than here in terms of maternal death
I do not know what the evidence for that users claims are, but if you are going to call him out on them you should call him out on what he ACTUALLY said, not what you are inventing yourself.
FIRST, he never said it was "safer than here in terms of maternal death" in the post you replied to. He said "And Canada, which has abortion available, is statistically proven to be safer than Ireland, "despite" the 8th Amendment.". No mention of maternal death there. You are shoving it in there yourself.
SECOND, in the post you replied to he made no reference to your link AT ALL. You are simply making it up that his post was related to your link. He just made a GENERAL point about the relative safety of the two countries.
As I said "maternal death" is one of only a NUMBER of factors that should be used when discussing the relative safety of the two countries. And if comparing two countries you have to normalise for a LOT of differences in an absolute multitude of things.
It is therefore a pedantic non-discussion. But the most important thing to take from it is that comparing two countries solely on the basis that one has the 8th and the other does not........... is a complete non-move and a total red herring.0 -
Advertisement
-
Actually if you look back I provided links with figures, I didn't put up my figures, you did.
You're weasling away from your post relating to my link that you said (mistakenly) showed Canada was safer than here in terms of maternal death, you then switched to Italy and Sweden, included a figure you got from my link to say that the eighth was the cause of at least one death in 100000.
That figure is your claim, I haven't seen any link to prove its not just your conjecture.
How exactly would abortion make pregnancy more dangerous for women please?
(That is what you're implying, isn't it?)
Do you accept that it cannot possibly make women safer, and that even if Ireland's maternity figures were the best in the world, there would still be no connection with the ban on abortion?
And that a single death due to an abortion having refused would still be a death that mattered to that woman and her family, and would not be "justified" by the low number of maternal deaths otherwise?0 -
Actually if you look back I provided links with figures, I didn't put up my figures, you did.
You're weasling away from your post relating to my link that you said (mistakenly) showed Canada was safer than here in terms of maternal death, you then switched to Italy and Sweden, included a figure you got from my link to say that the eighth was the cause of at least one death in 100000.
That figure is your claim, I haven't seen any link to prove its not just your conjecture.
You actually don't get my point.
I have zero interest in defending anything. You posted a nonsensical claim that because of a ban on abortion, Ireland was safer than the UK.
By pointing to Italy and Sweden, which are safer than Ireland, I was only pointing out the nonsense inherent in your argument. If you want to argue about which nonsense is more nonsenical than the other nonsense, then we can continue.
I do not see any connection between the availability of abortion and maternal death statistics. Over to you to explain why UK is more dangerous but Sweden is safer.0 -
You actually don't get my point.
I have zero interest in defending anything. You posted a nonsensical claim that because of a ban on abortion, Ireland was safer than the UK.
By pointing to Italy and Sweden, which are safer than Ireland, I was only pointing out the nonsense inherent in your argument. If you want to argue about which nonsense is more nonsenical than the other nonsense, then we can continue.
I do not see any connection between the availability of abortion and maternal death statistics. Over to you to explain why UK is more dangerous but Sweden is safer.
I posted a link with figures, nonsensical you say, why is that?
Why if they are so nonsensical did you pick Canada firstly and mistakenly from them, when I then showed you Ireland was above Canada you jumped to Italy and Sweden which are above Ireland to try to turn the argument by using the same nonsensical figures?
I have agreed with you and Noz that the figures and percentages are negligible anyway, but still, they are a studious figure, they don't suggest Ireland is the great mother killer because of a constitutional number.
However it is of no benefit to have such a stipulation in the constitution as because of it we know at least one woman did die erroneously, and while maybe not included in any maternal death rate figures, who knows how many have died indirectly because of it, through not getting treatment for other illnesses.
The eighth needs to go. There are good arguments against it aside from blustering down shown figures with made up ones just for the sake of argument.
The three month limit being proposed is basically the sticking point for a lot of voters, the oireachtas being given the power to decide.
If you look at that then it wouldn't inspire confidence on the strength of any promises about said limits, they have already put that figure in, despite the ca not stipulating such in their report.
Some feel this can and only will go up as time goes by, its putting repeal voters off.
As I said, the oireachtas committee surprised most by even going that far, once the eighth is gone, who knows where it will stop.0 -
I posted a link with figures, nonsensical you say, why is that?
I have already explained the issue with your link and the comment you made while presenting it. That you have decided to ignore and dodge many of those posts does not make them go away. I have made it abundantly clear, at great length, what was and was not nonsense about it.I then showed you Ireland was above Canada you jumped to Italy and Sweden which are above Ireland to try to turn the argument by using the same nonsensical figures?
Turn WHAT argument though? You have been willfully vague about what your point even is/was in presenting that link and the tiny comment that came with it. There IS no argument there to "turn". It is a list of number of a SINGLE data point from a number of countries. It tells us nearly nothing, says nearly nothing, and seems to be a completely off topic red herring in terms of the actual topic of this thread.
What you think the argument/point is is entirely opaque to me and, at this point, I suspect to you too.I have agreed with you and Noz that the figures and percentages are negligible anyway, but still, they are a studious figure, they don't suggest Ireland is the great mother killer because of a constitutional number.
Nor does it suggest the opposite. ALL the figures tell us is that 8 women in every 100,000 die. Nothing else. Literally the only question of relevance therefore is "How do we get that figure even lower?".
There are a number of ways to do that. And some people on this thread and others have suggested that removal of the 8th is one path to that goal.
But saying things LIKE "Well that country over there has 8 too and dont have the 8th" says literally nothing. I SUSPECT (though I can only suspect it given how vague you have contrived to be) that you are trying to suggest that other countries without the 8th having the same figure means that therefore removing the 8th will do nothing........ but for the reasons I outlined at length in my previous posts that would be a MASSIVE nonsensical use of the single statistics in your link(s).
So all I can keep saying is I genuinely do not know at this point what you think your point is/was in the presentation of that link and it's contents. And I have to admit at this point I am no longer convinced even you know what your point is or was.As I said, the oireachtas committee surprised most by even going that far, once the eighth is gone, who knows where it will stop.
I see little reason to lend credence to the slippery slope scare mongering though. They have committed to the goals of the citizens assembly in the past and I see little reason to think that they will stray from that. Especially at the risk of their own political careers in doing so. There would have to be quite a driving force or incentive in play to make them do this I suspect.
But even i they did, so what? CONSISTENTLY in other countries around the world........ regardless of their limits or NO limits on abortion............ we find that the VAST majority of women choose abortion in or before week 12. (goes from 90-94% of abortions). By weeks 16 the figure rises to the near totality of choice based abortions.
I trust people and I trust women. They are generally good and generally make the right choices. Statistically speaking there simply is NO women out there who are carrying a child for 30 weeks and suddenly decide "Yea Im done here, this thing has to die". Abortions after 16 or 20 weeks are done for reasons of actual medical or other necessity.
So for those two reasons, each strong enough on their own but together pretty damn convincing, the slippery slope scaremongering I hear on occasion simply does not concern or scare me at all.0 -
Sir Prof Sabaratnam Arulkumaran seems to have suffered from a brain fart when he gave that interview. He says...Well, for example here : Medic 'Savita died as a result of abortion laws
Again Prof Aulkumaran says so.
You don't start a sentence with the word "if" unless you don't really know what you are talking about, or else you are deliberately trying to be devious.“if the presence of the Eighth Amendment cost Savita her life”, Prof Arulkumaran said: “It was very clear the things holding the hands of physicians was the legal issue.
Going back to the actual HSE report which he chaired and signed, it says on P.55 that key Causal Factor #2 was the
In plain English, that means her pregnancy should have been terminated/aborted. So the 8th amendment was not preventing an abortion in that case.Failure to offer all management options to a patient experiencing inevitable miscarriage of an early second trimester pregnancy where the risk to the mother increased with time from the time that membranes were ruptured.
The good Sir seems to have forgotten the contents of the report, or else he never really understood the legal issues in the first place.0 -
Advertisement
-
Try reading it again : he didnt say that, he was asked it by a senator.Sir Prof Sabaratnam Arulkumaran seems to have suffered from a brain fart when he gave that interview. He says...You don't start a sentence with the word "if" unless you don't really know what you are talking about, or else you are deliberately trying to be devious.
And he answered that it did.
(Did you deliberately edit that quote to change the apparent meanings there, or can you neither read nor write?)
That barrel has the bottom well scraped out of it by now. My quote above explains that issue : if she had had a termination when she asked, without there being any doubt about fetal hearbeats and stuff, the subsequent infection issues would not have arisen.Going back to the actual HSE report which he chaired and signed, it says on P.55 that key Causal Factor #2 was the
In plain English, that means her pregnancy should have been terminated/aborted. So the 8th amendment was not preventing an abortion in that case.
The good Sir seems to have forgotten the contents of the report, or else he never really understood the legal issues in the first place.
You can keep denying it, but as I said, I think it's reasonable to accept the explanations of an eminent obstetrician who examined her case in detail over the Lifesite version. Or yours. If that isn't repeating myself.
0 -
OK the way it is reported is a bit confusing so I misread that. He apparently only said the latter part “It was very clear the things holding the hands of physicians was the legal issue".Try reading it again : he didn't say that, he was asked it by a senator.
The legal issue which the hospital tried to use in its defence was the lack of clarity, because the govt. had failed to legislate for the x case at the time. That has since been remedied, in 2013. But despite the lack of legislation at the time, the constitutional position of the 8th amendment still allowed abortion back then if the mother's life was at risk.
That is not a direct answer to the senators question which asked specifically whether it was the 8th amendment that cost her her life. The direct answer to that question would be "No". Because the it was not the 8th that prevented the hospital from terminating the pregnancy.
I just quoted the section from the report that says the hospital was wrong in not making all options available if there was a known risk to her life.0 -
OK the way it is reported is a bit confusing so I misread that. He apparently only said the latter part “It was very clear the things holding the hands of physicians was the legal issue".
The legal issue which the hospital tried to use in its defence was the lack of clarity, because the govt. had failed to legislate for the x case at the time. That has since been remedied, in 2013. But despite the lack of legislation at the time, the constitutional position of the 8th amendment still allowed abortion back then if the mother's life was at risk.
That is not a direct answer to the senators question which asked specifically whether it was the 8th amendment that cost her her life. The direct answer to that question would be "No". Because the it was not the 8th that prevented the hospital from terminating the pregnancy.
I just quoted the section from the report that says the hospital was wrong in not making all options available if there was a known risk to her life.
Your own quote shows that the answer to that was yes.
But you are clearly determined to ignore what he said explicitly.
I think that tells us how objective you are on the question.0 -
The main legal issue at the time was that abortion was still illegal generally under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act.Your own quote shows that the answer to that was yes.
But the 8th combined with the X-case made it legal in some circumstances, such as this one.
The 1861 legislation was only updated in 2013 to bring it into line with the 8th amendment of the constitution.
Then you have the fact that many staff have served their time in hospitals who have historically used RCC canon Law as the basis for their ethics policies. When they move to a different hospital, they may not be sure what is state law and what is the "ethos" of a hospital. Hence "this is a catholic country" comment reportedly made by one staff member.
Sir Prof Sabaratnam Arulkumaran may not have wanted to delve into all this local complexity, so was simply saying if there were no legal issues to consider then the patient would still be alive. Which is also your view, and I agree. An abortion would have made all the other malpractices that occurred later irrelevant.
However it is wrong to say the 8th amendment was to blame for preventing an abortion in that scenario.
It is ironic that many of the same TDs who failed to update the 1861 legislation to reflect the X-case/8th amendment position from 1992 to 2013 and only did so eventually after warnings from the ECHR, now want us to forego the constitution and put our trust entirely in their legislative abilities.0 -
I posted a link with figures, nonsensical you say, why is that?
Why if they are so nonsensical did you pick Canada firstly and mistakenly from them, when I then showed you Ireland was above Canada you jumped to Italy and Sweden which are above Ireland to try to turn the argument by using the same nonsensical figures?
I have agreed with you and Noz that the figures and percentages are negligible anyway, but still, they are a studious figure, they don't suggest Ireland is the great mother killer because of a constitutional number.
However it is of no benefit to have such a stipulation in the constitution as because of it we know at least one woman did die erroneously, and while maybe not included in any maternal death rate figures, who knows how many have died indirectly because of it, through not getting treatment for other illnesses.
The eighth needs to go. There are good arguments against it aside from blustering down shown figures with made up ones just for the sake of argument.
The three month limit being proposed is basically the sticking point for a lot of voters, the oireachtas being given the power to decide.
If you look at that then it wouldn't inspire confidence on the strength of any promises about said limits, they have already put that figure in, despite the ca not stipulating such in their report.
Some feel this can and only will go up as time goes by, its putting repeal voters off.
As I said, the oireachtas committee surprised most by even going that far, once the eighth is gone, who knows where it will stop.
The figures are nonsensical because there is no link between the number of maternal deaths and the availability of abortion. Zero correlation.
The point I was making and am still making is that the figures are nonsense. I don't have to defend the use of Canada or Sweden or Italy or the UK as I am only pointing out the nonsense of the argument.0 -
The figures are nonsensical because there is no link between the number of maternal deaths and the availability of abortion. Zero correlation.
The point I was making and am still making is that the figures are nonsense. I don't have to defend the use of Canada or Sweden or Italy or the UK as I am only pointing out the nonsense of the argument.
Your own first sentence is my point.0 -
Going back to the actual HSE report which he chaired and signed, it says on P.55 that key Causal Factor #2 was the
In plain English, that means her pregnancy should have been terminated/aborted. So the 8th amendment was not preventing an abortion in that case.
The good Sir seems to have forgotten the contents of the report, or else he never really understood the legal issues in the first place.
I have always understood that the medical team were abiding by the law (i.e. the 8th) in refusing Savita an abortion when she asked the first few times. Those refusals were legally mandated and it was essential that they were refused because yes, her health was under grave threat (from the textbooks) but her life wasn’t (the sepsis couldn’t have been detected for many hours yet, maybe 24 or 36).
So the following is what I understand to be the correct legal sequence of events that SHOULD have happened in the Savita case in 2012 (i.e. where at the end the 8th is ‘found innocent’):-
She is correctly refused an abortion because of fetal heartbeat present. There is a very serious threat to her health at that time but that is not grounds for being permitted a termination. No apparent threat to her life at this time (no sepsis to detect). But from then on, the medical team should have then monitored Savita extremely carefully (even if it took most of the manpower available in the hospital and even if it risked the health / life of other pregnant women or other emergency patients in the hospital).
They SHOULD have then detected the sepsis immediately when it started and then carried out the abortion. Savita might have a 10% to 20% chance of survival (I’m guessing those percentages) at *that point in time* but if she died then - the blame couldn’t be put at the door of the 8th – it should still be put on the 9 out of 30 of the medical team who treated her (like what eventually happened for the sepsis detection negligence in 2016) for not dealing with the extremely narrow margin for error in an extremely narrow time period in a normal busy hospital.
Looking at this in another way from the medical norms in countries like Netherlands where there is nothing like the 8th amendment:-
a second trimester miscarriage like this would be terminated immediately as it is completely senseless to continue to take extremely serious risks with a woman’s health or life for no coherent or logical reason, given the fetus will die anyway.
But you’re still maintaining that the 8th is not the cause of Savita’s death.0 -
Yes. This, in bold, is exactly the point.Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »I have always understood that the medical team were abiding by the law (i.e. the 8th) in refusing Savita an abortion when she asked the first few times. Those refusals were legally mandated and it was essential that they were refused because yes, her health was under grave threat (from the textbooks) but her life wasn’t (the sepsis couldn’t have been detected for many hours yet, maybe 24 or 36).
So the following is what I understand to be the correct legal sequence of events that SHOULD have happened in the Savita case in 2012 (i.e. where at the end the 8th is ‘found innocent’):-
She is correctly refused an abortion because of fetal heartbeat present. There is a very serious threat to her health at that time but that is not grounds for being permitted a termination. No apparent threat to her life at this time (no sepsis to detect). But from then on, the medical team should have then monitored Savita extremely carefully (even if it took most of the manpower available in the hospital and even if it risked the health / life of other pregnant women or other emergency patients in the hospital).
They SHOULD have then detected the sepsis immediately when it started and then carried out the abortion. Savita might have a 10% to 20% chance of survival (I’m guessing those percentages) at *that point in time* but if she died then - the blame couldn’t be put at the door of the 8th – it should still be put on the 9 out of 30 of the medical team who treated her (like what eventually happened for the sepsis detection negligence in 2016) for not dealing with the extremely narrow margin for error in an extremely narrow time period in a normal busy hospital.
Looking at this in another way from the medical norms in countries like Netherlands where there is nothing like the 8th amendment:-
a second trimester miscarriage like this would be terminated immediately as it is completely senseless to continue to take extremely serious risks with a woman’s health or life for no coherent or logical reason, given the fetus will die anyway.
But you’re still maintaining that the 8th is not the cause of Savita’s death.
You also make a good point about the level of care required by having to wait until sepsis has set in but act before it has taken hold. It's like playing Russian roulette, except in this case it's with other people's lives.
And in a busy maternity hospital, that has to be at the cost of care being given to other patients.0 -
Correct according to the 1861 (abortion)Act.Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »She is correctly refused an abortion because of fetal heartbeat present.
But not correct according to the 8th amendment to the constitution, which trumps any such outdated legislation.
The hospital knew the foetus would eventually die by itself, and was waiting for that to happen. That inaction caused a unacceptable risk to the mother's life.
Hence the HSE report listing...
...as a major causal factor in the tragedy.Failure to offer all management options to a patient experiencing inevitable miscarriage of an early second trimester pregnancy where the risk to the mother increased with time from the time that membranes were ruptured.0 -
Correct according to the 1861 (abortion)Act.
But not correct according to the 8th amendment to the constitution, which trumps any such outdated legislation.
How is it not correct according to the 8th - where in that short constitutional paragraph is the sophisticated wording that deals with overlooking heartbeat (surely an instance, in the terms set out in 1983, of an equal right to life of the unborn with the pregnant woman)
I’m not seeing that wording. I’m seeing the wording that the AG said at the time was totally vague & inadequate and would lead to major negative consequences (due to ambivalence).The hospital knew the foetus would eventually die by itself, and was waiting for that to happen. That inaction caused a unacceptable risk to the mother's life.
Hence the HSE report listing... ...as a major causal factor in the tragedy.
Actually forget my previous questions! This is the core of the issue - Why was the medical team waiting for the fetus inside Savita to die.
Had that waiting anything to do with the 8th amendment in your opinion? Or was there some other legal or medical reason for this waiting?0 -
Advertisement
-
Hmm. So you've told us Professor Arulkumaran got the law wrong. Presumably you have some knowledge of medicine or law, possibly both, to be so sure of this.Correct according to the 1861 (abortion)Act.
But not correct according to the 8th amendment to the constitution, which trumps any such outdated legislation.
The hospital knew the foetus would eventually die by itself, and was waiting for that to happen. That inaction caused a unacceptable risk to the mother's life.
Hence the HSE report listing... ...as a major causal factor in the tragedy.
So. Imagine you're a doctor with a miscarrying woman to deal with. No law of course (pre POLDPA) so probably no guidelines written.
At what point exactly are you legally allowed to intervene, given that the fetal heart is still beating? I'm not even asking you for a list of symptoms, just an evaluation of risks : 10% of death? 90%? Was 51%, as Dr Astbury thought, wrong? How would you know anyway?0 -
Its in the X-case interpretation of the text, valid since 1992.Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »How is it not correct according to the 8th - where in that short constitutional paragraph is the sophisticated wording ..
It was hospital policy at the time, apparently. Not required by the 8th amendment though.Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »This is the core of the issue - Why was the medical team waiting for the fetus inside Savita to die.
Its up to TDs to legislate and hospitals to have guidelines.So. Imagine you're a doctor with a miscarrying woman to deal with. No law of course (pre POLDPA) so probably no guidelines written.
At what point exactly are you legally allowed to intervene, given that the fetal heart is still beating?
The report mentions that risk increased significantly "from the time that membranes ruptured". Presumably sepsis is likely to set in after that, but I don't know much about these things. Obstetricians should know.0 -
So you plead ignorance. And yet when one of the world's most eminent obstetricians says things aren't that simple, as well as the Master of Holles St, you just know they're wrong. Must be great to be omniscient!
Its in the X-case interpretation of the text, valid since 1992.Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »How is it not correct according to the 8th - where in that short constitutional paragraph is the sophisticated wording ..
It was hospital policy at the time, apparently. Not required by the 8th amendment though.Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »This is the core of the issue - Why was the medical team waiting for the fetus inside Savita to die.
Its up to TDs to legislate and hospitals to have guidelines.So. Imagine you're a doctor with a miscarrying woman to deal with. No law of course (pre POLDPA) so probably no guidelines written.
At what point exactly are you legally allowed to intervene, given that the fetal heart is still beating?
The report mentions that risk increased significantly "from the time that membranes ruptured". Presumably sepsis is likely to set in after that, but I don't know much about these things. Obstetricians should know.
No I don't think you have a clue, just the usual religious certainties that you think give you the right to decide for others.0 -
Your own first sentence is my point.
But the full point there is there is no link in YOUR data set (about maternal deaths) in either direction.
Put another way, your link to that data set says nothing about the effect of the presence, or absence, of abortion at all. It just says "Here are the number of people who died in Ireland" and no inference in EITHER direction can be drawn to say that that figure would be higher OR lower were abortion to be available.
Whereas, while your actual point is unclear, it sounds more and more like you are TRYING to smuggle in the implication that the figure would be what the figure is either way, so doing away with the 8th, or bringing in abortion, would not benefit in any way.
Perhaps that is NOT the point/implication you are trying to make. But I can only assure you that it is coming across that way to me at least. And if it is NOT that, then what your point ACTUALLY is.... is still entirely unclear.0 -
Its in the X-case interpretation of the text, valid since 1992.
It was hospital policy at the time, apparently. Not required by the 8th amendment though.
I am still not clear on your position. Can you clarify:-
Are you saying that the medical team (using the x case findings) SHOULD have given her an abortion when she first requested it on day 3 of 7, i.e. 23 Oct (at a time when her life was not yet detected to be at risk as required by the x-case)?
Or do you mean a different timeline for a termination?0 -
So I was told that a sermon at a church in cork city last night was a savethe8th campaigner and several people got up and left. I would have thought a church would be home territory for the point of view being taken.
So not all practising Catholics(well they go to mass) are lock step with the savethe8th. I personally think the 8th ammendment should never have been put into the constitution. That was clearly a mistake then and has resulted in the mess we have now.0 -
Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »I am still not clear on your position. Can you clarify:-
Are you saying that the medical team (using the x case findings) SHOULD have given her an abortion when she first requested it on day 3 of 7, i.e. 23 Oct (at a time when her life was not yet detected to be at risk as required by the x-case)?
Or do you mean a different timeline for a termination?
The poster's opinion seems to be that it is a simple task for obstetricians, even though other countries don't do it, and several prominent obstetricians have said that it can actually very difficult to identify that point without fear of being accused of acting too soon.
Seems to be a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.0 -
I mean at the later time when a life threatening risk emerged. You are quoting particular days there, but I am not in a knowledgeable enough position to agree or disagree with your timeline.Zerbini Blewitt wrote: »I am still not clear on your position. Can you clarify:-
Are you saying that the medical team (using the x case findings) SHOULD have given her an abortion when she first requested it on day 3 of 7, i.e. 23 Oct (at a time when her life was not yet detected to be at risk as required by the x-case)?
Or do you mean a different timeline for a termination?
The report mentions "from the time that membranes ruptured" as being a significant moment in this context. I presume then that future hospital guidelines could/should include that as one specific example of when a termination is warranted under the 8th amendment?
Maybe they have already done that, I don't know.
My point is that the Savita case is a tragedy that has become a typical Irish cover up. No real sanction for those at fault, and the taxpayer then foots the bill to compensate the victim's family, as usual. The hospital staff should have monitored her better, the management and their legal advisor should have had different policies in place, and the politicians should have had the PoLPA in place from 1993. Now we are being told its the constitution's fault.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
So why are you so sure that Pr Arulkumaran was wrong? How could you possibly know better than him, and how arrogant is it of you to come out with sone if thr things you did about him? (A brain fart? Seriously? I think that's quite shameless.)I mean at the later time when a life threatening risk emerged. You are quoting particular days there, but I am not in a knowledgeable enough position to agree or disagree with your timeline.
The report mentions "from the time that membranes ruptured" as being a significant moment in this context. I presume then that future hospital guidelines could/should include that as one specific example of when a termination is warranted under the 8th amendment?
Maybe they have already done that, I don't know.
That may be true. But it is all irrelevant to tne fact that such risky and complex care, which other countries don't evem attempt unless there is a chance that the baby will be saved, was only made necessary by Ireland's law which requires that doctors identify the moment where her life, not just her health, is in danger.My point is that the Savita case is a tragedy that has become a typical Irish cover up. No real sanction for those at fault, and the taxpayer then foots the bill to compensate the victim's family, as usual. The hospital staff should have monitored her better, the management and their legal advisor should have had different policies in place, and the politicians should have had the PoLPA in place from 1993. Now we are being told its the constitution's fault.
That is what Professor Arulkumaran said, and since you are unable to show why he is wrong by telling us at what point they could legally have terminated the pregnancy without there being any room for doubt over the legality then it's logical to suppose he is right, and to wonder why you continue to say he is wrong.0
Advertisement