Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

antiskeptic · 18-05-2018 07:22AM

Overheal wrote: »

Already been told to drop the Savita issue. You’re of one mind about it that frankly, I and many others are not. You’re welcome to remain in the fantasy that the 8th hasn’t killed or harmed anyone but that doesn’t make it true. Any other fig leaves or was that your only one?

Hiding behind mammy's skirts isn't an auspicious start. It's up to the mod's of this forum what topics are discussed and when they ought be halted. I checked

You are only slightly right that I am of one mind. I accept, for example, that it is possible to legislate for "difficult cases" because the evidence for that has been produced. 77 abortions carried out for mental health reasons since 2013 has proven the "open the floodgates" No stance wrong.

So. Your evidence / argument. Given the argument has been discussed, but by no means exhaustively with you, we can cut to the chase from the get go.

Do you agree that there is nothing in the independent HSE investigative report into her death which either directly or indirectly lays the blame for Savita's death at the door of the 8th.

If no we can move on to other evidence. If yes, where is the section in the report doing as you suppose.

Delirium · 18-05-2018 07:47AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Hiding behind mammy's skirts isn't an auspicious start. It's up to the mod's of this forum what topics are discussed and when they ought be halted. I checked

You are only slightly right that I am of one mind. I accept, for example, that it is possible to legislate for "difficult cases" because the evidence for that has been produced. 77 abortions carried out for mental health reasons since 2013 has proven the "open the floodgates" No stance wrong.

So. Your evidence / argument. Given the argument has been discussed, but by no means exhaustively with you, we can cut to the chase from the get go.

Do you agree that there is nothing in the independent HSE investigative report into her death which either directly or indirectly lays the blame for Savita's death at the door of the 8th.

If no we can move on to other evidence. If yes, where is the section in the report doing as you suppose.

Re the incorrect claim that the 8th had no impact on the outcome regarding Savita:

An Oireachtas committee was again central to the process which has led to a referendum being held on the Eighth Amendment on 25 May.

Following the Citizens’ Assembly’s recommendation to allow for terminations up to 12 weeks of pregnancy with no restrictions, the Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was set up.

It again brought in legal and medical experts over weeks of hearings in 2017.

One of those experts was Sir Arulkumaran – the author of the HSE report into Savita’s death. He mentioned her case during proceedings on 18 October.

“It was very clear to me during the inquiry that the thing preventing the physician from proceeding was the legal issue because she repeatedly said she was concerned about the legal issue. I will give a little bit of explanation,” he said.

The mother was sick. There was no question about that. Even at the last minute they were using a hand probe to see whether the baby’s heartbeat was present or not. Any junior doctor would have said it was a serious condition and they must terminate.

“They were just keeping her going because of the mere fact the heartbeat was there. The legislation played a major role in making a decision. Somebody else might say they would have done the termination much earlier. That is a personal interpretation. It is why things are made difficult because of the legislation.

“I agree that if the legislation had been different, Savita’s case would not have happened.”

Source

antiskeptic · 18-05-2018 09:22AM

Delirium wrote: »

Re the incorrect claim that the 8th had no impact on the outcome regarding Savita

First things first. The claim is that the 8th is responsible for Savita's death. Her death laid at it's door is repeated constantly by Yes proponents. It's your charge and you have to make it stick.

The 8th is innocent until proven (or reasonably demonstrated) guilty. That's the way these things work.

-

A few comments:

1. HSE report into Savita's death.

The HSE summary of the report into Savita's death lists 3 causals. The law / constitution isn't mentioned in any of them. That same summary highlights 6 recommendations. Reference to anything legal/constitutional comes in at 4b.

The amount of focus on an item is an indication of it's contributory value. Law/Constitution doesn't figure much - other than it be included when looking at everything.

The position an item takes in the report is an indication of it's contributory value. Law/constitution sits down at Recommendation 4. Recommendation 4b as it happens.

The HSE report summary (and it's the same if you read the report) places any notion of the 8th's possible involvement way down the list. The report therefore, provides scant evidence for the charge laid a)on the 8th

2. The professors testimony to the Committee.

a) The professor, in speaking to the committee is speaking in a different capacity to the one he adopted in his report. In his report he is acting as the chair of a team of experts. Six other experts. The view of those seven people is what forms the conclusions of the report.
In his address to the committee he is speaking in a lone voice.

In so far as the two conclusions differ (the report vs. his lone voice) we would have contradictory evidence. We would then ask which of the two takes precedence: his lone voice (albeit chair) or the group view of seven experts, including him

b) It's important to realise that the professor needn't be taken as contradicting the report with his testimony. Whilst focusing on possible restrictions imposed by legislation, he is not altering the relative importance the report places on legislation as a possible contributor. The chief causals remain the chief causals.

c) If, ultimately, the 8th can be implicated we would have the lesser charge you yourself laid. We would have the 8th as having played a contributory part in her death. The charge that the 8th is to blame (in the sense of it being the primary culprit) would be dismissed.

So far however, we have nothing to implicate the 8th as having any involvement.

3. Criticism of the 8th

a)The report makes no criticism of the 8th. It recommends that all be looked at to prevent Savita II: clinical practices, medical guidelines, legislation, constitution. The reports contributors, doctors, aren't legislators. They rightfully don't comment on what they are not equipped to comment on.

b) The professor, in his address to the committee, focuses on legislation. "If it had been different then..". He does not say, nor can he say, whether it is possible for legislation to be sufficiently altered under the 8th. He does not implicate the 8th, not least because he is in no position to prove a negative.

4. Sequence

Constitution

Legislation arising from the constitution

Medical guidelines arising from the legislation

Clinical practices and procedures arising from the medical guidelines.

It can be that the Constitution forces the legislation which forces the medical guidelines which forces the clinical practices. In that case the constitution could be traced as being at fault. It can also be that the fault lies in any point(s) in the cascade, shy of the constitution.

No evidence has been presented making the link up to the constitution. Pointing to legislation and saying "if different then Savita wouldn't have happened", isn't in itself blaming either the legislation or the 8th.

5. Granting termination would have saved Savita's life.

There is no doubt that had Savita been given a termination at the time it was recognized that miscarriage was inevitable she would be alive now. There is no doubt either that the failure to terminate isn't the prime contributor to her demise. Thus says the report and the prof in his address doesn't contradict that.

In so far as the doctors considered themselves restrained by law we have two evidences to consider. The report, which says to look at everything to prevent re-occurrence. And the professors testimony, which says that if the legislation had been different...

Is it possible for the legislation to have been different? We know it is. The 2013 Act, with it's far more liberating guidelines, is an indication of what is possible to do with legislation under the 8th. That this legislation wasn't available to Savita isn't the fault of the 8th (since it was introduced under the 8th)

The professor nowhere condemns the 8th. At best he implicates legislation. See my point at 4 above regarding the place of legislation in things. Its not the 8th.

6. Would current Medical Council guidelines permit a timely termination in a Savita-like case

The current Medical Council guidelines (article 43.8) say terminations are legal where the risk to life is substantial. The risk need not be imminent and it need not be inevitable.

Substantial means: having substance. Not spurious.

It might be that had these guidelines (and the 2013 Act behind them) been in place for Savita, the doctors would not have considered themselves as restrained and a timely termination might have been carried out. I say might since we would have to assume the kind of medical misadventure and systems failures chiefly implicated in the report, didn't kill her first.

It would need to be demonstrated that a Savita II is foreseeable under the current guidelines in order for the 8th to be even implicated. And it would need to be shown that no further legislation under the 8th was possible, to further free doctors, in order for the blame to be laid directly at the 8th's door.

Even then, the 8th might remain a lesser-actor, if the finger was stilljj being pointed primarly at medical misadventure / systems failures

Conclusion:

Thus far, no evidence has been presented which can be shown to blame the 8th for Savita's death. Furthermore, nothing has been presented which can be shown to even implicate the 8th as having any part to play in her death.

The report doesn't do it, the prof's address to the committee doesn't do it.

What else is there by way of evidence?

SusieBlue · 18-05-2018 09:41AM

This is absolutely ridiculous carry on.

Delirium · 18-05-2018 09:42AM

So you don't accept that if an abortion had been provided when Savita requested it that she would still be alive? (Which wasn't allowed because of the 8th btw).

antiskeptic · 18-05-2018 09:46AM

Delirium wrote: »

So you don't accept that if an abortion had been provided when Savita requested it that she would still be alive? (Which wasn't allowed because of the 8th btw).

I'd prefer if you don't answer a question with a question. There is a substantial post above looking at various elements of the charges laid.

There is little point in reiterating the charge - its now time to step up to the prosecutor bench

....... · 18-05-2018 09:52AM

This post has been deleted.

Delirium · 18-05-2018 09:53AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'd prefer if you don't answer a question with a question. There is a substantial post above looking at various elements of the charges laid.

There is little point in reiterating the charge - its now time to step up to the prosecutor bench

To what end? I can't get anything from you as to what foundation the discussion is working from.

Expert testimony doesn't wash. Facts from the case don't either.

So if you're unwilling to answer the simplest question to at least have a starting point, I fail to see how we can progress the discussion.

antiskeptic · 18-05-2018 10:17AM

Delirium wrote: »

To what end? I can't get anything from you as to what foundation the discussion is working from.

We have a foundation alright. I've listed various aspects under which we can discuss

Expert testimony doesn't wash.

The prof's testimony is being queried. You have to overcome obstacles in order to make it wash.

Facts from the case don't either.

The report gives the facts and we have the reports conclusions regarding those facts. What other facts would you like to introduce. Authoritative facts which have been exposed to evaluation by authority as to their relevance in the whole picture.

So if you're unwilling to answer the simplest question to at least have a starting point, I fail to see how we can progress the discussion.

I'll add a section to the original post to deal with your question on whether or not Savita would have survived if a termination had been carried out on her request. Give me a minute.

antiskeptic · 18-05-2018 10:35AM

point 5 added to place the lack of termination in Savita's case in context

point 6 added to query whether a Savita case would occur under the current medical guidelines - introduced under the 8th

Other small edits

Delirium · 18-05-2018 12:44PM

Your analysis of the situation at the point Savita requested is somewhat misleading in that it would imply the pregnancy was lacking in a reason for termination.

Sunday 21 October, 2012

Savita and Praveen Halappanavar, who are expecting their first baby, arrive at Galway University Hospital.

The 31-year-old dentist, who is 17 weeks pregnant, attends hospital because of back pain.

She is diagnosed with lower back pain, advised physiotherapy and sent home.

Treating doctors now accept that this back pain was actually caused by contractions prior to miscarriage.

Evening of 21 October

About two hours later, Mrs Halappanavar returns to the hospital with more pain, and complains of a dragging sensation.

There is a foetal heartbeat, but she is not given an internal examination.

Blood tests are taken. These later show an abnormally high white blood cell count – a key signal of the risk of a sepsis infection - but these results are not relayed to her medical team.

Dr Katherine Astbury says she is working on the basis of clinical signs alone.

Monday 22 October

In the early hours, Mrs Halappanavar's waters break and she is told about the risk of infection.

A scan shows a foetal heartbeat.

Savita asks a midwife if there is any possibility of saving the baby and is told it would not be possible.

The phrase "inevitable miscarriage" is recorded in her medical notes.

Savita is put on antibiotics to guard against infection.

Tuesday 23 October

Aware that her baby will not survive, Mrs Halappanavar asks her consultant Dr Astbury for a termination.

The consultant tells her that "in this country it is not legal to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of poor prognosis for a foetus". A foetal heartbeat is present and her life is not at risk so it is not legally possible to carry out the termination.

Source

At the point she requested the abortion, she had been informed that the foetus had no chance of survival.

There was nothing gained by refusing her an abortion at this stage. She had a valid medical reason based on medical diagnosis for one.

So it's not a case of " Savita isn't the person to be deciding when an abortion is medically appropriate or not". The medical team gave her enough information to warrant the option of an abortion.

The pregnancy was failing and now it was a question of how to manage it under the restrictions imposed by the 8th.

EDIT: on a related note.

https://twitter.com/emer_harrington/status/996840244908568582

antiskeptic · 18-05-2018 02:07PM

Delirium wrote: »

Your analysis of the situation at the point Savita requested is somewhat misleading in that it would imply the pregnancy was lacking in a reason for termination.

Fair enough. I've modified the post to reflect better the situation.

At the point she requested the abortion, she had been informed that the foetus had no chance of survival.

The issue then appears to rest on her not satisfying the criteria for abortion wrt risk to life. Where does the problem lie: clinical guidelines, medical council guidelines, law, constitution?

Somebody has got to set the risk level - how close a person needs to be to death. It'll be the same at 17 weeks under the new legislation - someone has to set the risk level.

The question is whether it did permit someone to set it - but it they faffed / it wasnt clear enough. It seems clear enough now. If not now, will it ever?

It can be argued that the law isn't implicated - even granting what the professor said to the committee. Changing the law might railroad through obstacles caused by internal issues downstream of the law. But for the sake of brevity and getting ourselves to a resolution, let's suppose the problem is only to be solved by a change in the law

Is the law > guidelines now sufficient. It would appear Savita II wouldn't happen (assuming the rest of the system didn't fail her). In that case the 8th is not guilty

There was nothing gained by refusing her an abortion at this stage. She had a valid medical reason based on medical diagnosis for one.

Agreed. The practices then (which we are assuming for brevity's sake stem from "bad" law) didn't entertain this. They simply required risk to life to a degree beyond where she was at the time. Without that degree being clear to anyone.

The pregnancy was failing and now it was a question of how to manage it under the restrictions imposed by the 8th.

We're only at restrictions imposed by the law at the moment.

antiskeptic · 18-05-2018 02:13PM

Last year, 6 abortions in the UK were classed as 'emergencies' where mother's life was in immediate danger.

I'm not sure what relevance this has. There's no information to tie anything to this trial conversation.

Overheal · 18-05-2018 05:33PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

First things first. The claim is that the 8th is responsible for Savita's death. Her death laid at it's door is repeated constantly by Yes proponents. It's your charge and you have to make it stick.

The 8th is innocent until proven (or reasonably demonstrated) guilty.

We’re granting personhood to constitutional amendments now?

antiskeptic · 18-05-2018 06:27PM

Overheal wrote: »

We’re granting personhood to constitutional amendments now?

Nah. Just that there are personhoods behind the 8th.

And their actions are being accused of killing people.

You're not up for it. Which is about as good as it gets on internet discussion forums

Overheal · 19-05-2018 08:49PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

You're not up for it. Which is about as good as it gets on internet discussion forums

I still have no idea what you just said.

Manach · 20-05-2018 09:35AM

Overheal wrote: »

We’re granting personhood to constitutional amendments now?

Well the 8th certainly added to the long reaching (14th Century onward - source Prof. Keown, Bioethics & Law) series of protections to the unborn once life is detected. Could this perceived as having a persona, perhaps not, but at least the destruction of this as a concept might give people pause for thought.

antiskeptic · 20-05-2018 03:24PM

Manach wrote: »

Well the 8th certainly added to the long reaching (14th Century onward - source Prof. Keown, Bioethics & Law) series of protections to the unborn once life is detected. Could this perceived as having a persona, perhaps not, but at least the destruction of this as a concept might give people pause for thought.

Eamonn.

Delirium · 21-05-2018 07:54AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

The issue then appears to rest on her not satisfying the criteria for abortion wrt risk to life. Where does the problem lie: clinical guidelines, medical council guidelines, law, constitution?

Constitution, as it creates the situation where she had to have her life in danger to get an abortion. Without the 8th, doctors could have terminated the pregnancy on her request once it had been determined she was miscarrying.

Somebody has got to set the risk level - how close a person needs to be to death. It'll be the same at 17 weeks under the new legislation - someone has to set the risk level.

It actually goes further in that it includes "serious risk to health". That would mean that they could have aborted when Savita requested the abortion.

The question is whether it did permit someone to set it - but it they faffed / it wasnt clear enough. It seems clear enough now. If not now, will it ever?

It can be argued that the law isn't implicated - even granting what the professor said to the committee. Changing the law might railroad through obstacles caused by internal issues downstream of the law. But for the sake of brevity and getting ourselves to a resolution, let's suppose the problem is only to be solved by a change in the law.

Is the law > guidelines now sufficient. It would appear Savita II wouldn't happen (assuming the rest of the system didn't fail her). In that case the 8th is not guilty

Would disagree because when she requested the abortion only her health was at risk, something that 8th will place less importance on when it has to vindicate the right to life of the unborn.

"risk to life" is too low a bar for doctors to be guided by. The need the ability to act when either physical or mental health is also in danger. Otherwise it is legally justified to allow a woman become blind to ensure a pregnancy is carried to term.

Agreed. The practices then (which we are assuming for brevity's sake stem from "bad" law) didn't entertain this. They simply required risk to life to a degree beyond where she was at the time. Without that degree being clear to anyone.

Which is why the 8th needs to go, "is she dying yet/her life in danger?" is no way to manage a pregnancy.

antiskeptic · 21-05-2018 10:37AM

Delirium wrote: »

Constitution, as it creates the situation where she had to have her life in danger to get an abortion. Without the 8th, doctors could have terminated the pregnancy on her request once it had been determined she was miscarrying.

Didn't you call my pointing out that her request isn't relevant as mis- representative? Her request doesn't come into it - unless you want abortion on demand up to birth.

It's the doctors we're looking at. Then, now and in the event of repealed 8th legislation.

You say Constitution. Go back to my original post where all this is laid out and show (not tell) how you get from clinical guidelines (the stuff doctors deal with) through law to Constitution.

It actually goes further in that it includes "serious risk to health". That would mean that they could have aborted when Savita requested the abortion.

Forget Savita's request. The doctors under the new legislation are still confined. There can still be confusion and dithering such that this case will produce this result and that case will produce that result. Inaction could still result in death (since a serious risk to health can produce death)

Would disagree because when she requested the abortion only her health was at risk, something that 8th will place less importance on when it has to vindicate the right to life of the unborn.

"risk to life" is too low a bar for doctors to be guided by. The need the ability to act when either physical or mental health is also in danger. Otherwise it is legally justified to allow a woman become blind to ensure a pregnancy is carried to term.

The question involves the now situation - which indeed involves risk to life only. We are looking at whether Savita II could happen under the 8th.

How do we read the risk not having to be immediate? Do we have to wait, for example, until the patient has reached septic shock before acting? Immediate says we don't. Do we have to wait until sepsis advanced before acting? Not immediate and substantial say we don't: the risk has substance, even if not an immediate one. Do we have to wait until infection, whose root cause remains in situ and isn't going away without termination, turns to sepsis? No we don't. The risk is substantial, the risk isn't immediate. The risk needn't be inevitable (a natural miscarriage could result in the source of the infection being removed).

The question is whether the current guidelines permit doctors to intervene early on, rather than having to wait until things have actually reached a point of possible no return? Risk of death, yes. But action long before that risk has established into clear and present danger.

I think it would have to be shown that:

a) Savita II could still happen

b) it's the laws constriction, rather than confusion and dithering around it that is the problem

c) no other law could be introduced which removes the patient well away from dangerous thresholds.

.. before the 8th can be pronounced guilty

Which is why the 8th needs to go, "is she dying yet/her life in danger?" is no way to manage a pregnancy.

Substance / not immediate / not inevitable

Delirium · 21-05-2018 11:49AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Didn't you call my pointing out that her request isn't relevant as mis- representative? Her request doesn't come into it - unless you want abortion on demand up to birth.

I'm afraid you're wrong there. I merely pointed out that Savita was at the beginning of miscarrying when she requested the abortion.

She received medical information that the pregnancy wouldn't carry to term. That's a valid reason based on medical information to abort, in much the same way FFA is.

It's the doctors we're looking at. Then, now and in the event of repealed 8th legislation.

Yep. The doctors that told her she was miscarrying and then told her they were restrained by law (the 8th) from carrying out the abortion because her life wasn't in danger.

If repeal happens then "risk to health" is an option (one that would mean Savita would be alive today).

You say Constitution. Go back to my original post where all this is laid out and show (not tell) how you get from clinical guidelines (the stuff doctors deal with) through law to Constitution.

I fail to see how medical guidelines can legally trump the constitution.

Forget Savita's request. The doctors under the new legislation are still confined. There can still be confusion and dithering such that this case will produce this result and that case will produce that result. Inaction could still result in death (since a serious risk to health can produce death)

Of course inaction could still happen. However, legally there would be no restriction on acting when "risk to health" is established (which is currently not legally permitted).

The question involves the now situation - which indeed involves risk to life only. We are looking at whether Savita II could happen under the 8th.

How do we read the risk not having to be immediate? Do we have to wait, for example, until the patient has reached septic shock before acting? Immediate says we don't. Do we have to wait until sepsis advanced before acting? Not immediate and substantial say we don't: the risk has substance, even if not an immediate one. Do we have to wait until infection, whose root cause remains in situ and isn't going away without termination, turns to sepsis? No we don't. The risk is substantial, the risk isn't immediate. The risk needn't be inevitable (a natural miscarriage could result in the source of the infection being removed).

I don't know what the rate of those who die from miscarriage, so I don't know if it would meet the bar for "risk to life" being substantial. But it may meet the "risk to health".

The question is whether the current guidelines permit doctors to intervene early on, rather than having to wait until things have actually reached a point of possible no return? Risk of death, yes. But action long before that risk has established into clear and present danger.

I think it would have to be shown that:

a) Savita II could still happen

b) it's the laws constriction, rather than confusion and dithering around it that is the problem

c) no other law could be introduced which removes the patient well away from dangerous thresholds.

.. before the 8th can be pronounced guilty

Substance / not immediate / not inevitable

Child-birth has a higher chance of fatality compared to legal abortion, particularly when before 12 weeks. Yet that doesn't allow for abortion for women who are unwilling to accept that risk to their life.

Delirium · 21-05-2018 12:32PM

What we're currently discussing was addressed at a press conference by doctors that actually have to work within the law (second tweet below).

https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/998501668735082496
https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/998504511428800512

antiskeptic · 21-05-2018 01:56PM

Delirium wrote: »

She received medical information that the pregnancy wouldn't carry to term. That's a valid reason based on medical information to abort, in much the same way FFA is.

I don't disagree.

Yep. The doctors that told her she was miscarrying and then told her they were restrained by law (the 8th) from carrying out the abortion because her life wasn't in danger.

Was that:

a) because the law forbade it or because they were confused about the law

b) if the former, would the current law produce the same result

If repeal happens then "risk to health" is an option (one that would mean Savita would be alive today).

Not necessarily. The risk to health would have to cross a threshold. Doctors would still have to decide and doctors could still be confused about the threshold.

I fail to see how medical guidelines can legally trump the constitution.

The question was whether the medical guidelines caused the confusion (i.e. they didn't accurately reflect what was permissible under the law). Or whether the law caused the confusion (i.e. it didn't accuractely reflect what was permitted under the constitution (hint: act of 2013 is more "liberal" than the law of Savita's time)). Or whether the Constitution limited the best law possible (same hint as above) and whether the best law possible then limited the best guidelines possible.

How do you conclude Constitution at fault when you don't know whether it was something downstream of the Constitution as fault?

Of course inaction could still happen. However, legally there would be no restriction on acting when "risk to health" is established (which is currently not legally permitted).

See above.

I don't know what the rate of those who die from miscarriage, so I don't know if it would meet the bar for "risk to life" being substantial. But it may meet the "risk to health".

You haven't really said whether the setting back of a patient from the cliff edge (by means of substantial (having substance) / not immediate / not inevitable means you think a Savita wouldn't die today.

If you don't know then we have an aquital. Reasonable doubt.

Child-birth has a higher chance of fatality compared to legal abortion, particularly when before 12 weeks. Yet that doesn't allow for abortion for women who are unwilling to accept that risk to their life.

You can't please all of the people all of the time. No regime is going to give everyone exactly what they need when they need it - bar you have abortion on demand up to the time the umbilical is cut.

-

The question is whether the 8th is guilty of killing anyone - even a 4b contribution.

antiskeptic · 21-05-2018 02:12PM

But 'a week from now she may be critically ill because of possibility of infection'… doctors "have to wait for clear signs that she's dying" before acting

Question for you. If the 8th is retained and you were a woman with prematurely ruptured waters, would you prefer to be treated by the above doctors or by these doctors

Four of us who practiced in this jurisdiction have carried out necessary surgery which resulted in termination of pregnancy in order to save and protect Irish women. We had no difficulty in so doing, and the Eighth Amendment did not prevent us from performing an ethical and medically indicated procedure.

Overheal · 21-05-2018 04:54PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Question for you. If the 8th is retained and you were a woman with prematurely ruptured waters, would you prefer to be treated by the above doctors or by these doctors

Did those four doctors claim they wouldn’t make the woman wait for signs of an infection to occur before aborting the fetus that has 0% chance of making it to viability?

Methinks you’re peddling straw men to push nonsense.

antiskeptic · 21-05-2018 07:21PM

Delirium wrote: »

What we're currently discussing was addressed at a press conference by doctors that actually have to work within the law (second tweet below).

Not a lot of light from that, tbh.

As an aside. The 2013 Act says:

"The Act specifies the number and specialty of medical practitioners who must concur that a termination is necessary to prevent a risk of death."

From this I conclude:

A "risk of death" is the patient entering a phase in which death is a realistic outcome. Death obviously doesn't have to be inevitable - just a risk (one could say entering hospital at all involves a risk of death). Some threshold need apply. For instance: if the mortality of patients entering this phase is 50% then that's the risk of death the Act refers to.

Next up is the prevention of patients entering this risk zone. That's what the Act instructs. Again you have a phase to which a threshold might apply. 50% of the patients entering this zone end up entering the risk zone.

Once you decide that terminations are permissible on the grounds of health under the 8th, you have then to decide on phases / thresholds.

I'm not sure what difference setting very safe phases/thresholds since the Act doesn't specify that they need be tight.

Risk and prevention of strikes me as as wide open a door as folk see fit to make it.

-

Remember, the exact same thing is going to arise in the event of post 12 week abortions. Phases and thresholds if not set loose enough could (assuming they are capable of doing so now - we would need to see a case to get past the claims), cause death and serious injury to health.

Why can they be set loose enough then and not now? Who decides on the phases and thresholds?

Delirium · 22-05-2018 07:39AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't disagree.

Was that:

a) because the law forbade it or because they were confused about the law

b) if the former, would the current law produce the same result

Based on what I've read, the law forbade it. I.e. doctors determined that a miscarriage was definitely happening but there wasn't a substantial risk to life so no abortion was carried out.

Not necessarily. The risk to health would have to cross a threshold. Doctors would still have to decide and doctors could still be confused about the threshold.

True but the threshold overall is lower before a doctor can act because they don't have to wait until the woman is dying for an abortion to be allowable.

The question was whether the medical guidelines caused the confusion (i.e. they didn't accurately reflect what was permissible under the law). Or whether the law caused the confusion (i.e. it didn't accuractely reflect what was permitted under the constitution (hint: act of 2013 is more "liberal" than the law of Savita's time)). Or whether the Constitution limited the best law possible (same hint as above) and whether the best law possible then limited the best guidelines possible.

How do you conclude Constitution at fault when you don't know whether it was something downstream of the Constitution as fault?

Guidelines, law (at the time and now) all didn't allow for an abortion when health is at risk because they all need the life to be at risk. All of this flows from the 8th, i.e. the right to life has to be balanced with options available during a pregnancy. That currently is life for a life. The pregnant person must be dying to warrant the use of an abortion.

You haven't really said whether the setting back of a patient from the cliff edge (by means of substantial (having substance) / not immediate / not inevitable means you think a Savita wouldn't die today.

If you don't know then we have an aquital. Reasonable doubt.

Stated above. "Risk to life" as imposed by the 8th is too narrow a range for determining what course of action to take during a miscarriage (or other complications).

You can't please all of the people all of the time. No regime is going to give everyone exactly what they need when they need it - bar you have abortion on demand up to the time the umbilical is cut.

Not looking to please all. 12 weeks on demand works for my personal opinion on abortion. Plus government have said that abortions where foetus is viable must be treated to ensure they live. A 14 year prison sentence will apply if they don't. So see no issue with an abortion under that law.

The question is whether the 8th is guilty of killing anyone - even a 4b contribution.

Addressed above.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Question for you. If the 8th is retained and you were a woman with prematurely ruptured waters, would you prefer to be treated by the above doctors or by these doctors

Not sure that they conflict with each other as I don't know if the second group do wait until the life is in danger but they are generally able to save the life.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Not a lot of light from that, tbh.

As an aside. The 2013 Act says:

"The Act specifies the number and specialty of medical practitioners who must concur that a termination is necessary to prevent a risk of death."

From this I conclude:

A "risk of death" is the patient entering a phase in which death is a realistic outcome. Death obviously doesn't have to be inevitable - just a risk (one could say entering hospital at all involves a risk of death). Some threshold need apply. For instance: if the mortality of patients entering this phase is 50% then that's the risk of death the Act refers to.

Next up is the prevention of patients entering this risk zone. That's what the Act instructs. Again you have a phase to which a threshold might apply. 50% of the patients entering this zone end up entering the risk zone.

Once you decide that terminations are permissible on the grounds of health under the 8th, you have then to decide on phases / thresholds.

I'm not sure what difference setting very safe phases/thresholds since the Act doesn't specify that they need be tight.

Risk and prevention of strikes me as as wide open a door as folk see fit to make it.

-

Remember, the exact same thing is going to arise in the event of post 12 week abortions. Phases and thresholds if not set loose enough could (assuming they are capable of doing so now - we would need to see a case to get past the claims), cause death and serious injury to health.

Why can they be set loose enough then and not now? Who decides on the phases and thresholds?

They will be looser by the availability of "risk to health" under the new law. And it's arguable that a miscarriage would allow for abortion in much the same way as FFA (which will be an option under new law after 12 weeks). The foetus won't survive the pregnancy so it would be legal to abort. This would have meant that Savita had the abortion when miscarriage was established.

Repeal will allow for this new law which means that if the 8th stays, it can't be allowed. So the 8th is a barrier to the proposed law that would have saved Savitas life.

Delirium · 22-05-2018 07:47AM

also, regarding the 2013 Act it's worth bearing in mind that there are those in the No camp that want it rolled backed.

https://twitter.com/daithigor/status/998831762619985920

Delirium · 22-05-2018 08:03AM

seemingly a pro-life doctor today admitted the 8th was a factor in the death of Savita.

Anyone got any info on it?

Macha · 22-05-2018 08:32AM

It was on Morning Ireland apparently.

https://twitter.com/Colmogorman/status/998838591181742080

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments