nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

ROSA using Savita...

Zulu

I see ROSA (Socialist Feminist Movement) have put up posters with Savita image in their input to the campaign.

I understood that her family expressly asked that she not be dragged into this. Did they get permission? Or are they being exceptionally obnoxious?

It would be flipping fantastic if this thread could last 3 pages about the topic (use of her image without families consent - if that is indeed the case) before being dragged down the toilet hole of the abortion debate. Here's to hoping...

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

dulpit

It's funny how quickly this has derailed.

Regarding the use of her image, as stated her father has said it's okay. Still seems to me that it's a bit tasteless, and I can see why the main Yes campaign are not using it...

Zulu

SusieBlue wrote: »

While I can't say if it was race related, I did find the jeering and sneering from supposedly professional members of the audience when her name was mentioned to be in very poor taste.

The jeering and sneering was throughout that debate and not exclusively when she was mentioned, so I'm inclined to believe it had nothing to do with race at all.

This arrogant full flair dismissal of the 8th having any connection at all with her death is disgusting, misleading, and disrespectful.

Yeah, that's all fairly loaded language you're using there. I'm not inclined to believe the 8th was the root cause of what happened that poor woman, but whatever, it was a disgrace her treatment during and after.

Zulu

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't see any reason why a campaign group shouldn't use a public figure to convey their message

Ah but in fairness, ordinarily a "public figure" is someone who courts the media and profits from it somehow, she didn't. She was forced (for want of a better word) to be a "public figure" through tragedy.

I dont think its the same...

SusieBlue

Zulu wrote: »

The jeering and sneering was throughout that debate and not exclusively when she was mentioned, so I'm inclined to believe it had nothing to do with race at all.

I agree, it was rife on both sides for the whole debate, I just thought a bit of consideration for the woman might not have gone amiss and they could have stayed quiet and not resorted to panto tactics while her case was being discussed.

Yeah, that's all fairly loaded language you're using there. I'm not inclined to believe the 8th was the root cause of what happened that poor woman, but whatever, it was a disgrace her treatment during and after.

I'd actually disagree with that, I think the 8th was the root cause of her death, but ultimately, it cannot be denied that the medical mismanagement cost her her life. Both were at play.
I just think its disingenuous to state the 8th had nothing at all to do with it when it was at the very, very least it was a contributing factor.

One eyed Jack

SusieBlue wrote: »

Her sepsis was caused by her miscarriage. It poisoned her.
If she had been given an abortion when she requested one

That would have constituted abortion on demand, the very thing which the Yes campaign are suggesting won't happen if their campaign is successful. Second of all, even under the proposed legislation, at 17 weeks pregnant, she still wouldn't have been granted a termination of her pregnancy just because she requested it, as she was beyond the 12 weeks proposed.

she wouldn't have died, because the situation wouldn't have progressed to the point where the baby was poisoning her.

And that's exactly what we'll never know, and you couldn't possibly know. There are an infinite number of possibilities that could have led to an infinite number of outcomes, but you're purposely choosing to go with the one that suits your agenda, and that's fine, but the outcome of that choice, is that people are going to point out the obvious flaws in your argument.

SusieBlue

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That would have constituted abortion on demand, the very thing which the Yes campaign are suggesting won't happen if their campaign is successful. Second of all, even under the proposed legislation, at 17 weeks pregnant, she still wouldn't have been granted a termination of her pregnancy just because she requested it, as she was beyond the 12 weeks proposed..

Savita didn't want an abortion, she wanted a baby.

She was miscarrying and was hospitalised for a whole week before she died. She had already been told that her pregnancy wasn't viable but was made wait for nature to take its course with no medical intervention.
She requested an abortion at the beginning of the week, when she was first hospitalised, when they were certain there was no hope for her baby.
She was told "This is a Catholic country".
She wanted to speed up the inevitable. She wanted to begin grieving for her lost child.
Keeping her there for a week while her baby slowly died was in itself a cruelty.

That absolutely would not have been a case of abortion on demand. It would be a case of speeding up the inevitable and allowing a couple to grieve, instead of making her sit in hospital for a week slowly miscarrying.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And that's exactly what we'll never know, and you couldn't possibly know. There are an infinite number of possibilities that could have led to an infinite number of outcomes, but you're purposely choosing to go with the one that suits your agenda, and that's fine, but the outcome of that choice, is that people are going to point out the obvious flaws in your argument.

Not just my opinion and my agenda, but also the opinion of the doctor who chaired the independent investigation into her death, Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran.

He said:

"She did have sepsis. However, if she had a termination in the first days as requested, she would not have had sepsis. If she had the termination when asked for it, the sepsis would not arise.

"We would never have heard of her and she would be alive today," he said.

One eyed Jack

I think SB rather than derail the thread any further, I'll just agree with you on this much -

SusieBlue wrote: »

ultimately, it cannot be denied that the medical mismanagement cost her her life.

drunkmonkey

She died from mis management of Sepsis, this is killing Irish people every day in hospitals and it's not being recorded properly.
http://www.thejournal.ie/sepsis-awareness-killer-3828626-Feb2018/

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

That's the second time today I've seen people with the impression that her family requested her image not be used, where is that coming from? No campaign does have form, a lot of it, for just straight up lying and repeating it until it seeps in to people's minds but I wonder where they managed to slip that one in?

SusieBlue

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think SB rather than derail the thread any further, I'll just agree with you on this much -

Yes, and the 8th undoubtedly had a hand in that mismanagement.

One eyed Jack

Jace Flabby Lawn wrote: »

That's the second time today I've seen people with the impression that her family requested her image not be used, where is that coming from? No campaign does have form, a lot of it, for just straight up lying and repeating it until it seeps in to people's minds but I wonder where they managed to slip that one in?

It's likely coming from a place of a new attempt to clamour for the moral high ground in the kind of tactics that both sides are using.

I'm equally as dismissive of the Yes campaigns slogans like "Stop shaming women" and "Trust women" as equally disingenuous and accusatory as anything the No side has come up with. My immediate gut reaction is to say "I do trust women, I've never shamed women, so what the hell are they talking about?" If anything in my experience at least, it's actually been women who don't trust other women, and women who shame other women, and that's for a variety of reasons, not just for where they stand on the issue of abortion.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's likely coming from a place of a new attempt to clamour for the moral high ground in the kind of tactics that both sides are using.

I'm equally as dismissive of the Yes campaigns slogans like "Stop shaming women" and "Trust women" as equally disingenuous and accusatory as anything the No side has come up with. My immediate gut reaction is to say "I do trust women, I've never shamed women, so what the hell are they talking about?" If anything in my experience at least, it's actually been women who don't trust other women, and women who shame other women, and that's for a variety of reasons, not just for where they stand on the issue of abortion.

Yes I'm wondering specifically where it came from rather than the 10,000th "there are bad people on both sides" bit.

One eyed Jack

Jace Flabby Lawn wrote: »

Yes I'm wondering specifically where it came from rather than the 10,000th "there are bad people on both sides" bit.

I think it's fairly obvious how propaganda gets legs on social media.

newport2

Jace Flabby Lawn wrote: »

Yes I'm wondering specifically where it came from rather than the 10,000th "there are bad people on both sides" bit.

I heard Mattie McGrath say it on the Claire Byrne debate on Monday, saying the Yes side were acting against the family's wishes.

drunkmonkey

SusieBlue wrote: »

Yes, and the 8th undoubtedly had a hand in that mismanagement.

No they still don't have a handle on it and it's killing women, men and children right now. It wasn't the 8th.
Give me cancer any day at least you've a sporting chance.

SusieBlue

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No they still don't have a handle on it and it's killing women, men and children right now. It wasn't the 8th.
Give me cancer any day at least you've a sporting chance.

She was denied her request for an abortion on the grounds of the 8th.
If she had been given an abortion, she wouldn't have had the opportunity to develop the sepsis.
Her miscarriage caused the sepsis that ultimately killed her.
It is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. The 8th had a hand in her death, its indisputable.

drunkmonkey

No bag management of Sepsis killed her. It wasn't spotted in time and at that stage hospitals weren't properly equipped and following best practices and they still aren't today.
I've seen this kill first hand and I'm appaled still years later what's happening in hospitals. It's a f'n disgrace excuse my French.

SusieBlue

drunkmonkey wrote: »

No bag management of Sepsis killed her. It wasn't spotted in time and at that stage hospitals weren't properly equipped and following best practices and they still aren't today.
I've seen this kill first hand and I'm appaled still years later what's happening in hospitals. It's a f'n disgrace excuse my French.

What caused the sepsis?

[Deleted User]

SusieBlue wrote: »

She said it when she was denying Savita's request for an abortion.
If she had been granted this abortion when she asked, her baby wouldn't have stayed inside her for a whole extra week slowly dying, it wouldn't have poisoned her, she wouldn't have developed sepsis, and she wouldn't have died.

"This is a catholic country" is very relevant.

I am surprised a nurse would have the authority to permit or deny abortion.

[Deleted User]

SusieBlue wrote: »

What caused the sepsis?

What caused the pregnancy?

OT: I heard a panelist (?) on TV say the family of the poor woman forbidded it.

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

I am surprised a nurse would have the authority to permit or deny abortion.

Nurses and doctors cannot do anything to help their patients unless there is an immediate threat to the life of the mother.
This "threat" is undefined, which causes confusion during emergencies, medical staff aren't clear on what does and doesn't constitute a good enough reason to perform a termination and women undoubtedly suffer for it.

They shouldn't have to wait until they are dying to receive healthcare.

SusieBlue

Deleted User wrote: »

What caused the pregnancy?

OT: I heard a panelist (?) on TV say the family of the poor woman forbidded it.

Completely incorrect. Both Savita and her husband begged for an abortion but were refused.

"I recall telling her about the legal situation. She basically said she was finding it very upsetting and difficult having to sit with the baby in her. She didn't want to have to wait."

Her requests were repeatedly denied and she was kept hospitalised for a whole week before her death.

ShooterSF

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's likely coming from a place of a new attempt to clamour for the moral high ground in the kind of tactics that both sides are using.

I'm equally as dismissive of the Yes campaigns slogans like "Stop shaming women" and "Trust women" as equally disingenuous and accusatory as anything the No side has come up with. My immediate gut reaction is to say "I do trust women, I've never shamed women, so what the hell are they talking about?" If anything in my experience at least, it's actually been women who don't trust other women, and women who shame other women, and that's for a variety of reasons, not just for where they stand on the issue of abortion.

I think the bigger issue and it's not just during this referendum is that posters are not an adequate medium for complex debate. I'd be happy to see them banned!

One eyed Jack

SusieBlue wrote: »

What caused the sepsis?

An underlying infection, the same as causes any case of sepsis. That's really the point I'm making is that whether or not she was miscarrying at the time, it's just as likely had her medical team decided to proceed with a termination of her pregnancy that she could have developed sepsis from that -

https://www.sepsis.org/sepsis-and/pregnancy-and-childbirth/

That's why I agreed with you earlier that medical mismanagement was the cause of her death, and we don't know whether or not the existence of the 8th amendment was a factor in her death (because that would be a different set of circumstances, and people die of sepsis in other countries too), because not only are cases of sepsis detected in Irish hospitals every day among patients who aren't pregnant, they can and do still die too.

Zulu

Deleted User wrote: »

OT: I heard a panelist (?) on TV say the family of the poor woman forbidded it.

Actually very on topic.
I believe it was from a panelist on TV where I also heard it.

I do not believe it was a concerted effort on behalf of the No side, as someone has suggested.

SusieBlue

One eyed Jack wrote: »

An underlying infection, the same as causes any case of sepsis. That's really the point I'm making is that whether or not she was miscarrying at the time, it's just as likely had her medical team decided to proceed with a termination of her pregnancy that she could have developed sepsis from that -

https://www.sepsis.org/sepsis-and/pregnancy-and-childbirth/

That's why I agreed with you earlier that medical mismanagement was the cause of her death, and we don't know whether or not the existence of the 8th amendment was a factor in her death (because that would be a different set of circumstances, and people die of sepsis in other countries too), because not only are cases of sepsis detected in Irish hospitals every day among patients who aren't pregnant, they can and do still die too.

The professor in change of the investigation agrees, and that's good enough for me.
Its logical to see that if she had been given an abortion when she requested one, her miscarriage wouldn't have turned septic, she wouldn't have been poisoned, her care wouldn't have been mismanaged and she wouldn't have died.
Saying the 8th had nothing to do with her death is disingenuous.

Zulu

You both agree sepsis killed her.
You are not going to convince each other (or anyone else for that matter) that either of you are correct.
It would be just awesome if you all dropped it.

One eyed Jack

ShooterSF wrote: »

I think the bigger issue and it's not just during this referendum is that posters are not an adequate medium for complex debate. I'd be happy to see them banned!

The only time I ever made a complaint to Gardaí about posters was during the referendum on the right to travel when a particular lobby group thought it was a good idea to put up graphic images outside a family restaurant. I didn't need to see that, but I'm not offended by the campaign posters of the Yes campaign, I just think they're stupid is all tbh.

Zulu

Oh i'd love to see campaign posters banned out right - for all matters. Bloody blight, and dangerous enough when you are a cyclist.

daithi84

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

In any other country the dying fetus would of been removed ASAP to reduce the risk of sepsis. She was left in agony for 3 days with an open cervix as the fetus still had a heartbeat. Doctors could not intervene until here life was in immediate danger. She then developed sepsis, the sepsis was mismanaged and she died. Cause of death was sepsis, source of sepsis was a dying fetus which was not removed as per best medical practice due to the 8th amendment.