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

8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

Options
1…4142444647…324

Comments

  • Options
    #1292
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    That isn't how things work legally - do you go further back and say her partner in impregnating her caused her death? Her mother in giving birth to her led to her death (which, when you think about it, is actually true for everyone but very much besides the point).

    In law when we look at causation there is the general "but for" principle - the last link in that causation chain is not the lack of abortion on demand but medical negligence - just like you (hopefully) recognise that saying her partner getting her pregnant caused her death is absurd.

    Or to turn your statement around - if Ms Savita had gotten the proper medical care she was entitled to you wouldn't be raising her in the case for repealing the 8th because she would be alive.

    Don't be so ridiculous.
    She was told she was miscarrying. She was told there was no hope.
    She asked for an abortion to speed up the process, so as not to prolong her own suffering.

    Because of the 8th, because the baby still had a heartbeat, and therefore still had an equal right to life, and Savita's life wasn't in danger, she was denied that abortion.

    Her miscarriage then turned septic, and by the time they started treating her, it was too late. And she died. But if she had been given the abortion she had requested, that never would have happened.

    As for the bolded, she couldn't be given the proper medical care until her life was in danger.
    Note the use of the word life here, and not health.


  • Options
    #1293
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    RobertKK wrote: »
    So we can trust politicians like this doctor to not change to far more liberal abortion approach in the future...

    I don't trust politicians not to row back the changes in the future, what if Fianna Fail get in and then abortion is illegal again? Whoever said it yesterday is right, we should be demanding a constitutional right to bodily autonomy.


  • Options
    #1294
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    RobertKK wrote: »
    So we can trust politicians like this doctor to not change to far more liberal abortion approach in the future...

    You know most of the country has changed their view on abortion? People's views mature...


  • Options
    #1295
    erica74
    Registered Users Posts: 2,619 ✭✭✭erica74


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    Because as a prospective father knowing that I will have no legal rights to prevent the abortion of my child affects me personally.

    Separately...

    Just a response I wanted to share when someone raised that my position "places the life of the unborn above that of the mother" and also asked about rape cases:

    Equally I can't understand that you can't see that if I were to wish to keep my unborn child - there is nothing I can legally do to prevent its destruction if the 8th is repealed. That a father (married or unmarried) has no say in how their child is disposed of is a travesty I am willing to fight tooth and nail against.

    My stance of supporting the status quo does not place the unborn's life above that of a woman's, it is why we allow abortions in Ireland already for circumstances where the life of the mother is at risk (either through suicide or as life-saving treatment is administered to the mother which may inadvertently cause the destruction of the unborn) - but your stance places the unborn's life clearly below that of the person carrying the child/foetus/cellular blob.

    The hard cases you present above are things I have considered and while they represent the extreme (and in the case of rape probably one of the strongest arguments for an expanded abortion regime in Ireland) I have in the end made my peace with the fact that unfortunately even within this hardest of hard cases - the unborn's life is not to be placed below a bodily autonomy argument - the rapist is the criminal and should be prosecuted accordingly (nor would I allow them any of the rights I would argue prospective fathers should get) but the unborn is not the criminal in this case. If you do not see a separate living entity as obtaining the right to life until being born, or from an arbitrary (12 week or otherwise) time period then of course it is similar to cutting your own nails - no-one in their right mind would be opposed to that. But if you do see these entities as possessing a right to life from potentially in/(con)ception then you could come to understand that this right to life being extinguished is abhorrent to many right thinking people.

    As for the medication point - it is why for some people taking medication it is mandatory to be on a contraceptive plan to ensure a pregnancy does not occur - it would be highly irresponsible of a medical practitioner to put their patient's health at risk but not following proper procedure - see roaccutane prescriptions - as a female patient I would be obligated to be on a presribed contraceptive plan or else the drug would not be given to me. Even as a male patient I had to sign a statement to the medical practitioner stating that I will not seek to foster a child while on the medication plan before the drugs were allowed to be prescribed. Arguing that abortion should be allowed because of medication conflation issues is cracking a nut with a sledgehammer. I am not against contraception - so this is a much simpler, humane and ethical way to solve the issue instead of allowing abortion on demand for these edge cases (which can be solved by non-abortive measures).

    Prevention is always better than cure - but the "cure" of abortion on demand necessitates the revoking of the right to life of a human entity - that is not something I am prepared to do without overwhelmingly important reasons and I have not seen anything from the yes camp to convince me such a reason exists.

    To answer you directly on the pregnancy as a result of rape I would say that yes you should keep the unborn child - you can choose to raise it with the support of your loving family or place it for adoption but it intrinsically has a right to life that cannot be extinguished by reasons outside of its control (being created from a criminal act). It is also why for fatal foetal abnormalities I can understand why an expansion of the abortion regime should be considered - the entity may not be regarded as "alive" or having any quality of life in the few hours of being born to passing away - even here the intrinsic value I place on human life means that while some FFA cases i.e. child being born with no brain I see an argument for expanding the abortion regime, I would wish to be very careful to distinguish between "no quality of life" and "very little quality of life" cases. FFA cases represent to me the actual hardest of hard cases as this drives directly at the meaning of life (of the unborn).

    The human right to life is a pillar of my moral and ethical outlook - it is why I am against the death penalty and why I am in favour of bodily autonomy with the right to choose death personally in assisted suicide. But choosing death on behalf of a distinct individual, without the legal input of the other person who created that individual is something I am willing to campaign hard against.

    You have less "right" over your potential unborn child because of biology. A woman carries the baby, that's life, you can't change biology. As it stands you don't have any rights above and beyond the woman's choice to go to the UK (or anywhere else). If you're campaigning hard for more rights over the unborn child, I presume you're campaigning against the right to travel?

    You want women to carry their rapist's baby, you want women to carry their dying babies, you want women to do what you want because for some reason you think you know best.
    Savita's death was a direct result of the 8th amendment, some like to say that the doctors were confused or misinterpreted the law or whatever. However, no doctor should ever be put in the position of trying to interpret law, while trying to administer medicine and treatment, everything should be simple and clear, which, at the moment, it isn't.


  • Options
    #1296
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,449 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    RobertKK wrote: »
    So we can trust politicians like this doctor to not change to far more liberal abortion approach in the future...

    Robert

    We trust politicians from the moment we are born until the day we die to legislate for every single aspect of our lives so tell me what's so different about this?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1297
    wexie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,480 ✭✭✭wexie


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    You know most of the country has changed their view on abortion? People's views mature...

    well...some people's anyways


  • Options
    #1298
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    RobertKK wrote: »
    So we can trust politicians like this doctor to not change to far more liberal abortion approach in the future...

    What if they do. Do you think women will be having abortions at 6 months for the craic?


  • Options
    #1299
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    Triceratops Ballet wrote: »
    When she was miscarrying she asked for an abortion she was denied that, can you explain to me (as if I'm a 5 year old) how the 8th amendment was not a factor in her death?

    If you were a 5 year old I would say - doctors should have made sure Ms Savita was ok when she came to the hospital - they didn't spot an infection she developed and she died because of that mistake.

    If you're an adult I would point you towards this Examiner opinion piece:
    https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/savitas-death-is-not-about-abortion-it-is-about-medical-negligence-247993.html

    In particular the HIQUA report which states “The consultant, non-consultant hospital doctors and midwifery/nursing staff were responsible, and accountable, for ensuring that Savita Halappanavar received the right care at the right time. However, this did not happen.”

    The legislation passed after Ms Savita's case (Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act) did not change the actual law on the ground - the same principles which should have resulted in a termination being performed on Ms Savita due to the life-threatening condition she found herself in. That the consultant did not spot this meant that the HSE needed to settle out of court for a reportedly large sum - but if they were legally constrained by the Constitution and performed everything as required i.e. the 8th was tying their hands then they would have (barring political/non-legal reasons) fought the case on the grounds that it was the 8th that caused her death, and the hospital/consultant did not have any blame and so Ms Savita's case would have turned out the same no matter how diligent the staff were, due to the legal constraints placed upon them by the 8th.


  • Options
    #1300
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    In law when we look at causation there is the general "but for" principle - the last link in that causation chain is not the lack of abortion on demand but medical negligence - just like you (hopefully) recognise that saying her partner getting her pregnant caused her death is absurd

    I seriously hope you are lying about being a lawyer.


  • Options
    #1301
    PhoenixParker
    Registered Users Posts: 2,671 ✭✭✭PhoenixParker


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    If you were a 5 year old I would say - doctors should have made sure Ms Savita was ok when she came to the hospital - they didn't spot an infection she developed and she died because of that mistake.

    If you're an adult I would point you towards this Examiner opinion piece:
    https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/savitas-death-is-not-about-abortion-it-is-about-medical-negligence-247993.html

    In particular the HIQUA report which states “The consultant, non-consultant hospital doctors and midwifery/nursing staff were responsible, and accountable, for ensuring that Savita Halappanavar received the right care at the right time. However, this did not happen.”

    The legislation passed after Ms Savita's case (Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act) did not change the actual law on the ground - the same principles which should have resulted in a termination being performed on Ms Savita due to the life-threatening condition she found herself in. That the consultant did not spot this meant that the HSE needed to settle out of court for a reportedly large sum - but if they were legally constrained by the Constitution and performed everything as required i.e. the 8th was tying their hands then they would have (barring political/non-legal reasons) fought the case on the grounds that it was the 8th that caused her death, and the hospital/consultant did not have any blame and so Ms Savita's case would have turned out the same no matter how diligent the staff were, due to the legal constraints placed upon them by the 8th.

    The guy who wrote the report on Savitas death specifically said in interviews later that the 8th was at fault.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1302
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    If you were a 5 year old I would say - doctors should have made sure Ms Savita was ok when she came to the hospital - they didn't spot an infection she developed and she died because of that mistake.

    If you're an adult I would point you towards this Examiner opinion piece:
    https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/columnists/victoria-white/savitas-death-is-not-about-abortion-it-is-about-medical-negligence-247993.html

    In particular the HIQUA report which states “The consultant, non-consultant hospital doctors and midwifery/nursing staff were responsible, and accountable, for ensuring that Savita Halappanavar received the right care at the right time. However, this did not happen.”

    The legislation passed after Ms Savita's case (Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act) did not change the actual law on the ground - the same principles which should have resulted in a termination being performed on Ms Savita due to the life-threatening condition she found herself in. That the consultant did not spot this meant that the HSE needed to settle out of court for a reportedly large sum - but if they were legally constrained by the Constitution and performed everything as required i.e. the 8th was tying their hands then they would have (barring political/non-legal reasons) fought the case on the grounds that it was the 8th that caused her death, and the hospital/consultant did not have any blame and so Ms Savita's case would have turned out the same no matter how diligent the staff were, due to the legal constraints placed upon them by the 8th.

    Why when she asked for a termination when she was already miscarrying was she not given one?


  • Options
    #1303
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #1304
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    RobertKK wrote: »
    So we can trust politicians like this doctor to not change to far more liberal abortion approach in the future...

    I think we can trust politicians like this doctor to change if the electorate want a far more liberal approach in the future.

    Because that is what we pay them to do: represent us.


  • Options
    #1305
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    Robert

    We trust politicians from the moment we are born until the day we die to legislate for every single aspect of our lives so tell me what's so different about this?

    It's literally the only argument they have now.

    Pfft, don't trust the government, they'll introduce mandatory abortions, up to 90 weeks.

    And I'll repeat it for everyone to see, RobertKK wants enforced pregnancies, because he wants his pension paid for.


  • Options
    #1306
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    In particular the HIQUA report which states “The consultant, non-consultant hospital doctors and midwifery/nursing staff were responsible, and accountable, for ensuring that Savita Halappanavar received the right care at the right time. However, this did not happen.”

    HIQUA are reporting on did the doctors do their job within the current procedures and guidelines. The answer is no.

    HIQUA are not reporting that the current procedures and guidelines, because they follow the law of the land, are bonkers. That is outside the remit of their report.


  • Options
    #1307
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    ....... wrote: »
    But they did spot it. It was only affecting her health and not her life at that point though and the 8th prevented them from treating it properly until it affected her life.

    And you are right that it was not about abortion, she wanted her baby. However it is the 8th that allowed her to die when her wanted pregnancy started to miscarry.

    When you say they did spot it - I refer you to her consultant's evidence at the coroner's inquest: (taken from the Examiner opinion piece I linked to in my previous post)

    She didn’t think there was any threat to Savita’s health. As she said in her evidence to the coroner’s inquest: “there was no suggestion that she was in any way unwell...”

    But equally I haven't read the full ins and outs of the report - so if you do have a link to a HSE report or similar which supports your view that the 8th was the primary reason for the medical treatment failure received by Ms Savita (and again genuinely) please do link it for me as I'd be interested to read that finding.


  • Options
    #1308
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    ....... wrote: »
    But they did spot it. It was only affecting her health and not her life at that point though and the 8th prevented them from treating it properly until it affected her life.

    And you are right that it was not about abortion, she wanted her baby. However it is the 8th that allowed her to die when her wanted pregnancy started to miscarry.

    When you say they did spot it - I refer you to her consultant's evidence at the coroner's inquest: (taken from the Examiner opinion piece I linked to in my previous post)

    She didn’t think there was any threat to Savita’s health. As she said in her evidence to the coroner’s inquest: “there was no suggestion that she was in any way unwell...”

    But equally I haven't read the full ins and outs of the report - so if you do have a link to a HSE report or similar which supports your view that the 8th was the primary reason for the medical treatment failure received by Ms Savita (and again genuinely) please do link it for me as I'd be interested to read that finding.
    It was a wanted pregnancy, but she was miscarrying. This must have been an horrendous time for her and her husband. She asked for a termination and was told by a midwife that this was a catholic country so she couldn't get one. (I don't know if the nurse was admonishing her or explaining how their hands were tied)
    She went on to develop sepsis, there was medical mismanagement, but had she been in a hospital in England she would be alive today.
    That's not good enough.
    The argument of preventing abortion is over, that horse has bolted. Women have a constitutional right to travel and the internet is a game changer.
    This is a health issue at this stage. When the majority of obstetricians and gynaecologists want a change to the 8th that is good enough for me.


  • Options
    #1309
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I seriously hope you are lying about being a lawyer.

    Have you studied tort law? Or medical negligence cases? Feel free to point out the flaws in my (simplistic) explanation chain of causation issues in tort law anyhow.

    Tort isn't the field I practise in but this is tort 101 stuff from law school days - if you want to have a crack at providing a better legal explanation you are very welcome to.


  • Options
    #1310
    pitifulgod
    Registered Users Posts: 1,282 ✭✭✭pitifulgod


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    When you say they did spot it - I refer you to her consultant's evidence at the coroner's inquest: (taken from the Examiner opinion piece I linked to in my previous post)

    She didn’t think there was any threat to Savita’s health. As she said in her evidence to the coroner’s inquest: “there was no suggestion that she was in any way unwell...”

    But equally I haven't read the full ins and outs of the report - so if you do have a link to a HSE report or similar which supports your view that the 8th was the primary reason for the medical treatment failure received by Ms Savita (and again genuinely) please do link it for me as I'd be interested to read that finding.

    If she had been allowed to have an abortion when she requested one. She would be alive. The 8th prevented her from having an abortion.


  • Options
    #1311
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    PhoenixParker wrote: »
    The guy who wrote the report on Savitas death specifically said in interviews later that the 8th was at fault.

    Who was the guy who wrote that report and do you have a link to the interviews where he said the 8th was at fault? I'd like to look at his legal reasoning for saying so.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1312
    erica74
    Registered Users Posts: 2,619 ✭✭✭erica74


    pitifulgod wrote: »
    If she had been allowed to have an abortion when she requested one. She would be alive. The 8th prevented her from having an abortion.

    It is literally this simple.


  • Options
    #1313
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    Have you studied tort law? Or medical negligence cases? Feel free to point out the flaws in my (simplistic) explanation chain of causation issues in tort law anyhow.

    Tort isn't the field I practise in but this is tort 101 stuff from law school days - if you want to have a crack at providing a better legal explanation you are very welcome to.

    Sorry but its highly patronising to be so dismissive because you feel you have some sort of upper hand because you have a law degree.

    1. She was having a miscarriage.
    2. She asked for an abortion.
    3. She was refused.
    4. She developed sepsis.
    5. Her medical care was neglected.
    6. She died.

    If she had been given an abortion when she requested one, #4, #5 and #6 couldn't have happened.
    Her father holds the 8th responsible. Her husband holds the 8th responsible.

    Doctors hands shouldn't be legally tied by objective grey areas during emergencies. I accept there was ambiguity regarding the law in the midst of the crisis, but that's exactly what the problem was.
    Both the doctors & Savita shouldn't have been put in that position.


  • Options
    #1314
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    Who was the guy who wrote that report and do you have a link to the interviews where he said the 8th was at fault? I'd like to look at his legal reasoning for saying so.

    https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/nimtreport50278.pdf

    Page 22 onwards. It's chilling.

    Repeal The 8th.


  • Options
    #1315
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    Who was the guy who wrote that report and do you have a link to the interviews where he said the 8th was at fault? I'd like to look at his legal reasoning for saying so.

    Perhaps you can explain what good is done by the law not allowing doctors to speed up miscarriages that are already happening.


  • Options
    #1316
    PlaneSpeeking
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,106 ✭✭✭PlaneSpeeking


    kylith wrote: »
    Perhaps you can explain what good is done by the law not allowing doctors to speed up miscarriages that are already happening.

    I'm a firm "Yes" to Repeal vote - and I asked a similar question.

    The reply was "where there is life there is hope".


  • Options
    #1317
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    Have you studied tort law? Or medical negligence cases? Feel free to point out the flaws in my (simplistic) explanation chain of causation issues in tort law anyhow.

    So you are saying Savita's family can't sue the 8th amendment? We agree there.

    But that has nothing to do with the actual cause of her death.


  • Options
    #1318
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    erica74 wrote: »
    It is literally this simple.

    Unfortunately it "literally" isn't.

    The 8th prevented her from getting an abortion when she requested one - that is absolutely factual.

    The medical treatment she should have gotten would have resulted in a legal abortion which she would be entitled to under the 8th.

    At the HSE enquiry Prof Arulkulmaran stated (again I refer to the Examiner opinion piece):
    Arulkumaran said he would have offered to terminate the pregnancy on Sunday, Oct 21, and advised termination after Savita’s waters broke in the early hours of Monday, Oct 22.

    This is within the remit of doctors operating under the 8th.


  • Options
    #1319
    Triceratops Ballet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,894 ✭✭✭Triceratops Ballet


    thirdfox, do you think women who order abortion pills online and take them here in Ireland should be prosecuted?


  • Options
    #1320
    Thirdfox
    Registered Users Posts: 7,110 ✭✭✭Thirdfox


    PlaneSpeeking wrote: »
    https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/news/nimtreport50278.pdf

    Page 22 onwards. It's chilling.

    Repeal The 8th.

    Thanks for the link.

    Do you have the interviews referred to also?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1321
    PhoenixParker
    Registered Users Posts: 2,671 ✭✭✭PhoenixParker


    Thirdfox wrote: »
    Who was the guy who wrote that report and do you have a link to the interviews where he said the 8th was at fault? I'd like to look at his legal reasoning for saying so.

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/eighth-amendment-played-major-role-in-savita-s-death-1.3261037

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/author-of-savita-halappanavar-report-says-8th-amendment-contributed-to-her-death-810432.html


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement