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

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

1…109110112114115…324

Comments

  • #3332
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    Brought to court? I seriously doubt that. Let's keep the 'Repeal' arguments cogent.
    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/judge-refused-to-order-woman-to-undergo-caesarean-section-1.2852130

    And some might say, "But the court refused, she wasn't forced to do anything, all is OK". But the fact is that the 8th amendment made the HSE think that they could. Why should a pregnant woman be dragged into court to have her rights tested because she tried to make a decision about her own fncking body?

    The existence of the eighth amendment means that the HSE can in future do the same to any woman who is pregnant. And whether they win or not is irrelevant.


  • #3333
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    And the judge deemed it a step too far. So, yes, I do. I guess it was brought to court, which Kylith said but was deemed to be ridiculous. So it’s highly unlikely AND was thrown out when it happened.

    I’m undergoing cancer treatment and there’s a lot you can say no to. Actually you can refuse all treatment if you want. I’m quite forthright actually.

    Most doctors want to do what they can for pregnant women but are constrained. Do we want to be casting them as the villains here? I don’t think it’s a great way to go personally.


  • #3334
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    And the judge deemed it a step too far. So, yes, I do. I guess it was brought to court, which Kylith said but was deemed to be ridiculous.

    I’m undergoing cancer treatment and there’s a lot you can say no to. Actually you can refuse all treatment if you want.

    Most doctors want to do what they can for pregnant women but are constrained. Do we want to be casting them as the villains here?


    I don't think anyone is casting doctors as the villains. They are as tied to the 8th as the rest of us. More so, hence why the Institute of O&G are pro-repeal. They may have felt they had to bring the woman to court in order to fulfill the 8th, or they could have faced consequences. Either way, it's the 8th that is at fault for causing the confusion and uncertainty in the first place.


  • #3335
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    And the judge deemed it a step too far. So, yes, I do. I guess it was brought to court, which Kylith said but was deemed to be ridiculous.

    I’m undergoing cancer treatment and there’s a lot you can say no to. Actually you can refuse all treatment if you want. I’m quite forthright actually.

    Most doctors want to do what they can for pregnant women but are constrained. Do we want to be casting them as the villains here? I don’t think it’s a great way to go personally.

    I don't think it's the doctors at fault, I think the hospitals are afraid of acting in a way that doesn't comply with the 8th. If they feel the mothers decision is endangering the life of their other patient they are compelled to act, regardless of how they personally feel about it. It puts them as individuals in a bad position and that's why so many advocate for a repeal


  • #3336
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    Ave Sodalis wrote: »
    I don't think anyone is casting doctors as the villains. They are as tied to the 8th as the rest of us. More so, hence why the Institute of O&G are pro-repeal. They may have felt they had to bring the woman to court in order to fulfill the 8th, or they could have faced consequences. Either way, it's the 8th that is at fault for causing the confusion and uncertainty in the first place.

    And that’s why a court order is so unlikely. A doctor may want to help you but they can’t force you to take medical treatment of any kind. You consent to everything. You have to, in fact. The above example shows that we are safe in that regard.
    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    I don't think it's the doctors at fault, I think the hospitals are afraid of acting in a way that doesn't comply with the 8th. If they feel the mothers decision is endangering the life of their other patient they are compelled to act, regardless of how they personally feel about it. It puts them as individuals in a bad position and that's why so many advocate for a repeal

    I support repeal. I should point that out.


  • Advertisement
  • #3337
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    And the judge deemed it a step too far. So, yes, I do. I guess it was brought to court, which Kylith said but was deemed to be ridiculous. So it’s highly unlikely AND was thrown out when it happened.

    I’m undergoing cancer treatment and there’s a lot you can say no to. Actually you can refuse all treatment if you want. I’m quite forthright actually.

    Most doctors want to do what they can for pregnant women but are constrained. Do we want to be casting them as the villains here? I don’t think it’s a great way to go personally.

    This isnt painting doctors as villians. It is highlighting the faults of the 8th that causes Doctors to often go against their better judgement.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #3338
    PhoenixParker
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,677 ✭✭✭PhoenixParker


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    And the judge deemed it a step too far. So, yes, I do. I guess it was brought to court, which Kylith said but was deemed to be ridiculous. So it’s highly unlikely AND was thrown out when it happened.

    I’m undergoing cancer treatment and there’s a lot you can say no to. Actually you can refuse all treatment if you want. I’m quite forthright actually.

    Most doctors want to do what they can for pregnant women but are constrained. Do we want to be casting them as the villains here? I don’t think it’s a great way to go personally.

    The thing is that as a cancer patient your rights with regard to consent are much stronger than those of a pregnant woman specifically because the 8th amendment exists.

    You can say no and that's that. A pregnant woman must ask to say no and if the doctor agrees then she is permitted to.

    Ending up in court is the extreme example, and I agree unlikely to happen, but the shift in the power dynamic and how the whole conversation regarding treatment plays out is very real and present in thousands of decisions and conversations that never get near a court or review panel.


  • #3339
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    I don't think it's the doctors at fault, I think the hospitals are afraid of acting in a way that doesn't comply with the 8th. If they feel the mothers decision is endangering the life of their other patient they are compelled to act, regardless of how they personally feel about it. It puts them as individuals in a bad position and that's why so many advocate for a repeal

    Zubes mentioned something similar in the politics forum thread. The 8th doesn't just allow these types of actions, it requires them. The 8th not only recognises the unborn's right to life, it says the state guarantees to protect and vindicate that right.

    That puts an incredible onus on the state, and organs of the state such as public hospitals, so it's unsurprising that in times of uncertainty doctors here will seek advice from the courts when in other countries there would be no need to do so.


  • #3340
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #3341
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    PhoenixParker wrote: »
    The thing is that as a cancer patient your rights with regard to consent are much stronger than those of a pregnant woman specifically because the 8th amendment exists.

    You can say no and that's that. A pregnant woman must ask to say no and if the doctor agrees then she is permitted to.

    Ending up in court is the extreme example, and I agree unlikely to happen, but the shift in the power dynamic and how the whole conversation regarding treatment plays out is very real and present in thousands of decisions and conversations that never get near a court or review panel.

    I don’t know about that. It’s not like there are no stakes for oncologists. They don’t want people thinking that patients are needlessly dying on them. The incentive is there for them to get patients to take the treatments.

    If you think that cancer patients don’t feel pressure to try treatments, you’re very wrong. It’s exceptionally hard to say no when people are trying to help you. But ultimately you can. And I have. And so can pregnant women. The above-linked case only reinforces my view. That case seems isolated and didn’t get anywhere.


  • Advertisement
  • #3342
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #3343
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • #3344
    frag420
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,161 ✭✭✭frag420


    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    If you're an Irish citizen or a person living in Ireland then all good, when you go to donate it just asks you to confirm you are one or the other!

    Good job on getting the company donation!!

    Thanks. I am Irish but living outside the state. Does it ask for confirmation of citizenship/residency?
    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    If you are Irish citizens you can donate upto €2500 perferctly legally. Corporate donors have to register.


    http://m.sipo.gov.ie/en/Guidelines/Explanatory-Notes/Explanatory-Notes-for-Third-Parties/Explanatory-Notes-for-Third-Parties.html

    Thanks. If we were to split the full amount amongst us then it would be significantly more than £2,500 each. We may have to look for volunteers to donate on our behalf. I am assuming that way we would not have to register as its would be a foreign owned multinational company giving a cash advance to an employee who can do what they want with it including donating to a good cause!


  • #3345
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    frag420 wrote: »
    Thanks. I am Irish but living outside the state. Does it ask for confirmation of citizenship/residency?

    It's ok if you're living outside the state, it only asks you to check a box confirming that you are an Irish citizen or resident, I wasn't required to prove either (though I am both)


  • #3346
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    And the judge deemed it a step too far. So, yes, I do. I guess it was brought to court, which Kylith said but was deemed to be ridiculous.

    I’m undergoing cancer treatment and there’s a lot you can say no to. Actually you can refuse all treatment if you want.

    Most doctors want to do what they can for pregnant women but are constrained. Do we want to be casting them as the villains here? I personally don’t think it’s a great way to go personally.
    But it was brought to court in the first place! A pregnant woman does not have the right to refuse, or even necessarily to be informed about, procedures.

    Are you pregnant, Dara? Because if a pregnant woman is diagnosed with cancer and it’s decided that treatment would harm the foetus her ‘treatment’ Is to go to the UK or to hope, because effective treatment which can’t be given without damaging the foetus can’t be given.

    As you say; doctors aren’t villains, but they are constrained. Medically a woman and the foetus she carries can’t be considered the same because if treatment for one will damage the other then one of them has to be the secondary consideration.


  • #3347
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    And that’s why a court order is so unlikely. A doctor may want to help you but they can’t force you to take medical treatment of any kind. You consent to everything. You have to, in fact. The above example shows that we are safe in that regard.
    I’m sorry Dara, but a suicidal woman was strapped to a bed and force fed because she didn’t want to have her rapist’s baby, so you’ll have to forgive me for not being confident that we can’t be forced into anything.


  • #3348
    _Dara_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,971 ✭✭✭_Dara_


    kylith wrote: »
    But it was brought to court in the first place! A pregnant woman does not have the right to refuse, or even necessarily to be informed about, procedures.

    People are in thrall to doctors. They don't question them enough. It's very frustrating to me because I question them a lot. They are fallible.

    A very effective campaign would be for pregnant women to refuse anything they are not comfortable with left, right and centre.

    Gonna take thousands of women to court, HSE? I doubt it. And the case above only highlights the futility of that action.

    Say no to anything you want and DARE them to do anything about. The more pregnant women that do so, the bigger the issue becomes.

    Like I said, cancer patients come under pressure to take treatments all the frickin' time. Oncologists and other doctors are trained to keep trying new things. They don't think in terms of failure.


  • #3349
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    Like I said, cancer patients come under pressure to take treatments all the frickin' time. Oncologists and other doctors are trained to keep trying new things. They don't think in terms of failure.

    But again: at no point can your doctors legally threaten you with legal action in order to compel you to have or not have treatment. Legally they can do this to a pregnant woman. Sure, every woman could try call their bluff but this is hardly an option when they rupture your membranes in the delivery room or give you an episiotomy without so much as a by-your-leave.


  • #3350
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    People are in thrall to doctors. They don't question them enough. It's very frustrating to me because I question them a lot. They are fallible.

    A very effective campaign would be for pregnant women to refuse anything they are not comfortable with left, right and centre.

    Gonna take thousands of women to court, HSE? I doubt it. And the case above only highlights the futility of that action.

    Say no to anything you want and DARE them to do anything about. The more pregnant women that do so, the bigger the issue becomes.

    Like I said, cancer patients come under pressure to take treatments all the frickin' time. Oncologists and other doctors are trained to keep trying new things. They don't think in terms of failure.

    I think we're getting off the point here. The fact is that the 8th can and does result in these kinds of cases. It's not a regular occurrence, but it's not impossible. I think it's right that they should form part of the campaign to repeal it because it highlights that bad law makes hard cases.

    Everyone in this particular discussion is in favour of pregnant women being able to freely consent or not consent to treatment in the same way that everyone else can. We're also all in favour of repeal. The latter is the surest way to lead to the former.


  • #3351
    Neyite
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,948 ✭✭✭✭Neyite


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    People are in thrall to doctors. They don't question them enough. It's very frustrating to me because I question them a lot. They are fallible.

    A very effective campaign would be for pregnant women to refuse anything they are not comfortable with left, right and centre.

    Gonna take thousands of women to court, HSE? I doubt it. And the case above only highlights the futility of that action.

    Say no to anything you want and DARE them to do anything about. The more pregnant women that do so, the bigger the issue becomes.

    Like I said, cancer patients come under pressure to take treatments all the frickin' time. Oncologists and other doctors are trained to keep trying new things. They don't think in terms of failure.

    Pressure is one thing. The simple fact is that any other medical procedure is presented to the patient as a choice. These are your options. This is what we can do for you. We strongly suggest you take option A. If you don't agree, feel free to get a second opinion. The choice is yours.

    As a cancer patient, you can choose to decline all and any treatment. You can even choose death if your cancer is terminal and you don't want it. A pregnant woman can't even choose that.

    I had no choice in my pregnancies. I was told when I was getting an appointment. I was told what tests I was getting. I was told I was getting induced. I was told if I didn't dilate quickly enough I was getting prepared for a c-section (which subsequently happened). I was told I was getting an internal exam. I was given 17 different types of medication from the time I stepped over the threshold of the hospital, and not given a choice or much discussion over what was being given.

    And if I didn't do what I was told, the 8th amendment meant that I was breaking the law and could be compelled by force to undergo whatever the doctors wanted me to undergo.


  • Advertisement
  • #3352
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2018/01/24/choosing-the-most-offensive-image-for-your-pro-life-campaign-poster/?utm_source=WWN_Facebook_Page&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=Social_Link&utm_content=Article


    This is incredibly spot on


  • #3353
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,816 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    Neyite wrote: »
    Pressure is one thing. The simple fact is that any other medical procedure is presented to the patient as a choice. These are your options. This is what we can do for you. We strongly suggest you take option A. If you don't agree, feel free to get a second opinion. The choice is yours.

    As a cancer patient, you can choose to decline all and any treatment. You can even choose death if your cancer is terminal and you don't want it. A pregnant woman can't even choose that.

    I had no choice in my pregnancies. I was told when I was getting an appointment. I was told what tests I was getting. I was told I was getting induced. I was told if I didn't dilate quickly enough I was getting prepared for a c-section (which subsequently happened). I was told I was getting an internal exam. I was given 17 different types of medication from the time I stepped over the threshold of the hospital, and not given a choice or much discussion over what was being given.

    And if I didn't do what I was told, the 8th amendment meant that I was breaking the law and could be compelled by force to undergo whatever the doctors wanted me to undergo.


    The hundreds of women who don’t ever go to appointments, or the many more who miss a few might hint at you that you’re not quite right in what you say there.
    The 8th gives a protection to the unborn’s life only - and only in the case where you do or do not do something to risk that life - would there be any danger if the courts being brought into it.
    Not going to an appointment, or not having a test during your antenatal care doesn’t really meet the standard.

    There’s a lot of conflation between what the 8th is and isn’t responsible for around the area of consent in maternity care.


  • #3354
    thee glitz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    baylah17 wrote: »
    thee glitz wrote: »
    To a point though, restricted, like you believe in?
    Misrepresent much??
    Or just too scared to quote my whole post?
    Sad wikkie boy be sad![/quote]

    Here's what you said
    Oh I do believe in restrictions.
    I firmly believe that no woman should be compelled to have an abortion against her will in the same way that i firmly believe that no woman should be compelled to carry an unwanted pregnancy against her will.
    You see I trust women and I believe in their right to choose whats best for them, unlike you!

    In what sense do you believe in restrictions?


  • #3355
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Not everyone on the No side likes the most recent "License to kill" posters.

    https://twitter.com/KeithMillsD7/status/981829222925729792


  • #3356
    bertieinexile
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 299 ✭✭bertieinexile


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    Neyite wrote:
    Pressure is one thing. The simple fact is that any other medical procedure is presented to the patient as a choice. These are your options. This is what we can do for you. We strongly suggest you take option A. If you don't agree, feel free to get a second opinion. The choice is yours.

    As a cancer patient, you can choose to decline all and any treatment. You can even choose death if your cancer is terminal and you don't want it. A pregnant woman can't even choose that.

    I had no choice in my pregnancies. I was told when I was getting an appointment. I was told what tests I was getting. I was told I was getting induced. I was told if I didn't dilate quickly enough I was getting prepared for a c-section (which subsequently happened). I was told I was getting an internal exam. I was given 17 different types of medication from the time I stepped over the threshold of the hospital, and not given a choice or much discussion over what was being given.

    And if I didn't do what I was told, the 8th amendment meant that I was breaking the law and could be compelled by force to undergo whatever the doctors wanted me to undergo.

    The hundreds of women who don’t ever go to appointments, or the many more who miss a few might hint at you that you’re not quite right in what you say there.
    The 8th gives a protection to the unborn’s life only - and only in the case where you do or do not do something to risk that life - would there be any danger if the courts being brought into it.
    Not going to an appointment, or not having a test during your antenatal care doesn’t really meet the standard.

    There’s a lot of conflation between what the 8th is and isn’t responsible for around the area of consent in maternity care.
    Well said ProfessorPlum


  • #3357
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,228 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    _Dara_ wrote: »
    People are in thrall to doctors. They don't question them enough. It's very frustrating to me because I question them a lot. They are fallible.

    A very effective campaign would be for pregnant women to refuse anything they are not comfortable with left, right and centre.

    Gonna take thousands of women to court, HSE? I doubt it. And the case above only highlights the futility of that action.

    Say no to anything you want and DARE them to do anything about. The more pregnant women that do so, the bigger the issue becomes.

    Like I said, cancer patients come under pressure to take treatments all the frickin' time. Oncologists and other doctors are trained to keep trying new things. They don't think in terms of failure.

    You are completely missing the point. The 8th forces doctors into this legal quagmire of forcing women against their consent.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #3358
    crustybla
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 922 ✭✭✭crustybla


    Neyite wrote: »
    Pressure is one thing. The simple fact is that any other medical procedure is presented to the patient as a choice. These are your options. This is what we can do for you. We strongly suggest you take option A. If you don't agree, feel free to get a second opinion. The choice is yours.

    As a cancer patient, you can choose to decline all and any treatment. You can even choose death if your cancer is terminal and you don't want it. A pregnant woman can't even choose that.

    I had no choice in my pregnancies. I was told when I was getting an appointment. I was told what tests I was getting. I was told I was getting induced. I was told if I didn't dilate quickly enough I was getting prepared for a c-section (which subsequently happened). I was told I was getting an internal exam. I was given 17 different types of medication from the time I stepped over the threshold of the hospital, and not given a choice or much discussion over what was being given.

    And if I didn't do what I was told, the 8th amendment meant that I was breaking the law and could be compelled by force to undergo whatever the doctors wanted me to undergo.

    I hadn't realised until I've read these last few pages how affected by the 8th I was in both my pregnancies, particularly my 1st. Now that was traumatic. I wasn't given a choice in anything and some things not even told about until I asked questions later. Unfortunately the 8th sees us as cattle carrying the holy grail. Until it's born of course.:rolleyes:

    Best of luck with your treatment Dara, wishing you a speedy recovery.:)


  • #3359
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    thee glitz wrote: »
    Misrepresent much??
    Or just too scared to quote my whole post?
    Sad wikkie boy be sad!

    You've said a few times that you see the repeal side trying to push through abortion for any/no reason

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106631426&postcount=3278


    What's no reason in your opinion?


  • #3360
    thee glitz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,294 ✭✭✭thee glitz


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    thee glitz wrote: »
    Misrepresent much??
    Or just too scared to quote my whole post?
    Sad wikkie boy be sad!

    I didn't say this btw, just screwed up a post and couldn't edit it.
    You've said a few times that you see the repeal side trying to push through abortion for any/no reason

    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106631426&postcount=3278

    What's no reason in your opinion?

    No stated reason, none required.


  • Advertisement
  • #3361
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 5,917 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    thee glitz wrote: »
    DubInMeath wrote: »

    I didn't say this btw, just screwed up a post and couldn't edit it.



    No stated reason, none required.

    The recommendation is that access for 12 weeks should not be restricted due to reasons, not 12 weeks access for no reason.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0310/945065-oireachtas-8th-committee-12-week-recommendations/

    Anyone choosing to have a termination but they will have their reasons to do so and it wouldn't be taken lightly.

    You might not belive/agree with this and that they have no reason to have an abortion but at the end of the day any decision that a woman makes is none of your or my business.

    I just believe they should have the choice to make the decision and if they decide to have a termination procure it in Ireland and hence repeal.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement