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
Comments
-
-
Bad cases make bad law, isn't that the line? I haven't read it, but I understand the gist of what it will be about. I guess the counter to it would be what is the price we are willing to pay to save that poor woman? Is the potential abortion of X number of healthy, but unwanted babies, worth the saving of this woman's pain and grief (I am not saying it is or it isn't, merely asking the question).
The proposed legislation is not a slam dunk. If people are voting no because they don’t agree with the proposed legislation but are horrified by the FFA cases then they should vote yes and get off their backsides to campaign against the proposed legislation. Saying you are sacrificing the FFA cases for the sake of the many is just appeasing your own conscience. Do the right thing and get the constitution set right, then put your money where your mouth is and your efforts and campaign like mad.0 -
ohnonotgmail wrote:We have been through this several times already. You are just wrong. The leading experts in OBGYN have confirmed this.
No. Dr boylan confirmed it and a few of his colleagues agree. But the ones that disagreed were ignored. The ones that disagreed had no less experience than the ones confirming it. It's just your either agreeing with boylan or your wrong.
Boylan was caught lying several times in the Claire byrne debate. Very unlikable guy.ELM327 wrote:Your posts are confusing. But regarding the last sentence you are very much mistaken. You can believe what you like - including that today is Thursday for instance, but it's not changing the actuality, the 8th blocks healthcare until the mother is half dead, and today is Monday.
What about my posts confuse you? I can try to be more clear if you let me know.
Last year 25 legal abortions were carried out. 16 because of emergencies, 1 because of a threat of suicide and 8 because of the threat of physical illness.
That is nine people that had abortions last year and we're nowhere near deaths door.
You can believe what you like also. But I believe in facts and stats. Evidence you may call it.
The half dead argument is the only thing debunked.0 -
It wasn't debunked. It was dismissed by a pro lifer. The hiqua report is nothing to do with the 8th. It purely states that she would have lived and there were 13 occasions were life saving intervention could have taken place. It also mentioned she should and would have been given a termination. If the infection was found. Regardless of if her life was in immediate danger.
You do not have to be anywhere near deaths door.
Can I ask if you even read the post that was quoted to you? Where a woman is being left as a ticking time bomb because they refuse to give her an MRI?
Or the case of a woman who had a rotting placenta inside her, who couldn’t have it removed because her remaining fetus still had a heartbeat. Doctors had to wait until sepsis hit her like a freight train before they could intervene. Because of the 8th.
Not dying is an extremely low bar to set for healthcare. It’s a bar we wouldn’t accept in any other strain of healthcare, and a bar no man will ever have to face.0 -
Bad cases make bad law, isn't that the line? I haven't read it, but I understand the gist of what it will be about. I guess the counter to it would be what is the price we are willing to pay to save that poor woman? Is the potential abortion of X number of healthy, but unwanted babies, worth the saving of this woman's pain and grief (I am not saying it is or it isn't, merely asking the question).
It's actually even worse than you might have thought:
Edit: Warning - extremely disturbing account of prolongued miscarriage leading to massive infection"I've been trying to write this since this page was set up. Today marks the 8th anniversary of when the 8th amendment put my life in danger so it seems apt to share my story now.
8 years ago I was pregnant with twins. All was going well and my 16 week scan showed two healthy babies. Less than 2 weeks later I had some pains and heavy discharge. I went to the hospital where I was checked out and had a scan. All seemed ok with the babies and I was prescribed antibiotics for a uti. The following morning I felt very sick and started to bleed so I went into the maternity emergency room again. There I was examined and told I was losing the babies. I was told to go get a cup of coffee while they arranged a bed for me!
I was alone, left to wander around the hospital trying to understand what was happening After a while I got a bed on a ward and as I entered the room my waters broke. The midwife gave me a bed pan saying to use that when I went to the toilet as I would pass the babies any minute now. I was put on antibiotics to prevent getting an infection in my womb from my cervix being open. My partner finally got in to the hospital and we both broke down and waited for the inevitable to happen.
The next day the babies were still holding on so I was sent down to the antenatal clinic for a scan. Both babies still had heartbeats though both had no fluid in their sacs. We were told again that they should pass soon that there was no hope for them but we just had to let nature take its course. I remember one doctor said in another country we could give you a pill for this. This went on for 6 more days, every day being sent down for a scan. Every day waiting with all the expectant mothers and big baby bumps. Trying to hide my tears in case I upset another pregnant woman.
Myself and my partner were reading about break through advances in America, where doctors were attempting to "patch" up ruptured membranes in the womb. Yet nothing like that was being mentioned or offered to us. In fact bar looking after me nothing was being done to help my babies. I was told there was no point taking my iron and folic acid supplements. Basically there was no hope for my babies as far as medicine in Ireland was concerned yet I had to remain pregnant.
Eventually after 6 days, my baby girls cord prolapsed and slowly she died in my womb. The scan the following morning showed her heart had stopped. Later that evening she started to slip away and I was taken to the labour ward to deliver her. We got to see her and hold her while we waited for her placenta to deliver. Her cord had broken during delivery. As my baby boy still had a heartbeat the doctors couldn't do anything to help the placenta along. After a few hours they sent me back to the ward....her placenta still inside me. All antibiotics were stopped now as they could mask septicaemia so again we just had to wait while the midwives checked me regularly for signs of infection.
This went on for 7 days.
7 days of scans. 7 days of a heartbeat. 7 days of internal exams and twice daily blood tests. 7 days of waiting.
By now I could really see the doctors frustration, waiting, knowing I was going to get sick very fast. But there was was nothing they could do until my life was actually "at risk " So after a week of waiting I finally got sick. Very sick. This wasn't negligence on the hospitals behalf, they absolutely knew I was going to get sick. You can't leave a rotting placenta inside a woman.
When you give birth full term to a living baby there is a degree of urgency to deliver the placenta and make sure it has all delivered as it can cause complications. Leaving a placenta for 7 days was going to lead to an infection. The doctors knew this but their hands were tied due to the 8th amendment, because my 19 week old foetus had a heartbeat. He had a heartbeat but no chance of survival where as the chances of me getting sick were almost definite.
On that Sunday evening I was feeling fine, waiting for my supper. I got up to use the toilet and when I came out I started vomiting and shaking uncontrollably. Luckily my partner was there and called for help. That's how fast sepsis hits. That's why thousands die a year from it.
So finally my life was at risk, the doctors could take action. I was brought down to the labour ward and induced and put on multiple iv antibiotics immediately. My kidneys began to shut down. My lungs filled with fluid. I was in so much pain, struggling to breathe while trying to labour my baby who I knew wouldn't survive the labour. We asked what would happen if he was born alive and we were told nothing would happen, that they wouldn't intervene as he was only 20 weeks. So we were thankful that he didn't survive the labour as to watch him slowly die would have been unbearable. After the labour, my condition deteriorated rapidly. We barely got to see our little boy as I was rushed immediately to the high dependency unit where a team of doctors fought to keep me alive. Then once stabilised i was sent to itu where i spent a week. I needed vasopressors to raise my blood pressure, Iv fluids, Iv antibiotics and a blood transfusion. I spent another two weeks in hospital after that.
5 weeks in total, being away from my daughter who was 8 at the time. I loved my babies of course but I loved my living, breathing child at home a thousand times more. It broke my heart to be away from her.
All this for a baby, a foetus that the system would do nothing for once he was out of my womb but my LIFE was worth risking when he was in it.
If I had died it would have been one hundred percent due to the 8th amendment. But would people know that or would they be told it was due to infection caused by miscarriage?? I get so upset when I think about Savita. I know that so easily could have been me....compared to her I was lucky.
People dismiss what happened to her and deny the 8ths part in her death. Septic shock is a very real killer...with something like a 60 % death rate. It's insane and cruel that women need to get so sick before doctors can intervene. It's madness that I consider myself lucky to have survived a miscarriage.
And my poor babies. Was it humane to leave them slowly die in my womb, without fluid? My little girl slowly being deprived of oxygen over 24 hours until her heart stopped. My boy lying against my womb wall drying out for weeks and alongside a rotting placenta for 7 days??
And what about my older girl to be without her mother for 5 weeks? Not knowing or understanding why I couldn't come home.....why being pregnant was making me so sick.
All I could think about as I lay there realising that I might actually die was my daughter. About if I did die how she would think we had all been lying to her. That she would think we must have known I was sick. How could she believe that a miscarriage killed her mother? Thankfully it didn't come to that....I was lucky."0 -
Advertisement
-
seamus wrote:If carrying a pregnancy carries a risk of blindness, diabetes, permanent disability, or any one of a million non-life-threatening illnesses, there is nothing she can do about it in Ireland.
Be as condescending as you like but I'm not wrong.
Nine women who received abortions last year alone disagree with you.0 -
retro:electro wrote:What would you prefer, to wait until you’re drowning to be saved? Or to have prevented measures put in place to safeguard and ensure you never get to the stage where you are at deaths door and medical limbo before a professional can intervene? The doctor responsible for the independent report of Savita’s death has said that while malpractice was also to blame, the 8th contributed to her death and she would never have developed sepsis if the doctors had terminated the pregnancy when it became clear that she was miscarrying.
Of course not. But likewise I don't wanna be pulled from the pool because I might drown.
Of course she would have been saved with an abortion but the report also states she should have Ben given one because the current law allows it.0 -
No. Dr boylan confirmed it and a few of his colleagues agree. But the ones that disagreed were ignored. The ones that disagreed had no less experience than the ones confirming it. It's just your either agreeing with boylan or your wrong.
Boylan was caught lying several times in the Claire byrne debate. Very unlikable guy.
Whether you found Boylan likeable or not is irrelevant. He is not the only leading expert that believes the 8th was responsible for her death. The body that represents OBGYNs have called for the 8th to be repealed. I dont think it matters what anybody else says to you, you are going to believe what you want to believe irrespective of the truth.
What about my posts confuse you? I can try to be more clear if you let me know.Last year 25 legal abortions were carried out. 16 because of emergencies, 1 because of a threat of suicide and 8 because of the threat of physical illness.
That is nine people that had abortions last year and we're nowhere near deaths door.
You can believe what you like also. But I believe in facts and stats. Evidence you may call it.
The half dead argument is the only thing debunked.
you do have a source for these 9 then that confirms it was only because they were ill?0 -
To repeat an analogy from earlier in the thread - suppose in 10 years we have an amendment saying you can't have antibiotics unless your life is in danger (don't worry about why, maybe it has to do with superbugs and resistance).
So you go to the doctor, you have a chest infection, and she sends you to hospital. The hospital confirm you have a bacterial infection What's the treatment? Antibiotics. Great, can I have them? No - not yet. Have a seat there and we'll monitor you for a week, maybe you'll beat it on your own.
And then, a week later, they screw up, they aren't monitoring you closely enough, the infection spreads and you die.
The immediate, direct cause of your death was the screw-up, and that is what any report will say.
But anywhere else in the world, you would have been treated a week earlier and been home with your family already, instead of dead, and that is because of the amendment.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »To repeat an analogy from earlier in the thread - suppose in 10 years we have an amendment saying you can't have antibiotics unless your life is in danger (don't worry about why, maybe it has to do with superbugs and resistance).
So you go to the doctor, you have a chest infection, and she sends you to hospital. The hospital confirm you have a bacterial infection What's the treatment? Antibiotics. Great, can I have them? No - not yet. Have a seat there and we'll monitor you for a week, maybe you'll beat it on your own.
And then, a week later, they screw up, they aren't monitoring you closely enough, the infection spreads and you die.
The immediate, direct cause of your death was the screw-up, and that is what any report will say.
But anywhere else in the world, you would have been treated a week earlier and been home with your family already, instead of dead, and that is because of the amendment.
that kind of advanced thinking is beyond most on the No side.0 -
Advertisement
-
Was there not a change made to the law after Savita died?Of course not. But likewise I don't wanna be pulled from the pool because I might drown.
Of course she would have been saved with an abortion but the report also states she should have Ben given one because the current law allows it.0 -
Be as condescending as you like but I'm not wrong.
Nine women who received abortions last year alone disagree with you.
Do you think becoming blind is a threat to a woman's life?
Becoming unable to walk?
The 8th only starts 'caring' about women when their lives are under immediate threat, not their health - blindness is not fatal, being confined to a wheelchair is not fatal, even cancer is not considered an immediate threat! sure it can take months for it to get so bad that it's life-threatening what's the rush eh?0 -
Boylan was not lying, the shout 'em down rentamob lied through their teeth and were not factchecked once.No. Dr boylan confirmed it and a few of his colleagues agree. But the ones that disagreed were ignored. The ones that disagreed had no less experience than the ones confirming it. It's just your either agreeing with boylan or your wrong.
Boylan was caught lying several times in the Claire byrne debate. Very unlikable guy.
What about my posts confuse you? I can try to be more clear if you let me know.
Last year 25 legal abortions were carried out. 16 because of emergencies, 1 because of a threat of suicide and 8 because of the threat of physical illness.
That is nine people that had abortions last year and we're nowhere near deaths door.
You can believe what you like also. But I believe in facts and stats. Evidence you may call it.
The half dead argument is the only thing debunked.
You have not presented any evidence, merely unsubstantiated numbers. 9 would tie in with the total of 37 since the PLDP act. But - and this is the important part - you have not answered the post I quoted about the woman (and thousands like here, lets be frank) whose health is endangered but not enough for the 8th.
Should they be let get worse and die, but save the foetus... but oh wait it's attached to the mother you've killed and isn't viable at 10 weeks.0 -
-
Can you point out on what?Boylan was caught lying several times in the Claire byrne debate. Very unlikable guy.
I actually find him very likeable personally, but in that programme I agree he struggled he looked frustrated and was barely allowed to finish a blooming sentence, he was treated horribly I would hardly blame him.
I think RTE would benefit from a fact check at the end of the show like the Tonight show on TV3 did, that pointed out 5 lies from the No side, and 1 from the Yes side.0 -
The numbers are not the issue.amcalester wrote: »Have you a link to the source for these numbers?
There could conceivably have been 9 terminations in Ireland last year. There were 37 in total since the PLDP act.
What is the issue, is that he claimed they were not "at death's door" sick, just that their health - not their life - was endangered. And I don't think there will be a way he can prove that.0 -
Cupcake_Crisis wrote:Not dying is an extremely low bar to set for healthcare. It’s a bar we wouldn’t accept in any other strain of healthcare, and a bar no man will ever have to face.
I did read the post.
Did you not read mine?
25 legal abortions last year alone. Only 16 were immediate risk to life. Meaning 9 were not at risk.
As for the sexist comment at the end. I know of men who were misdiagnosed and mistreated in this healthcare system. Likewise if anything ever happened to my girlfriend do you not think I would suffer?
My grandfather sat on a bed in a hallway of one-off the bigger hospitals in Ireland. He had chest pains and was not seen by anyone because his chest pains were not constant. We had to lie and tell them the pain was constant just to get him seen to. He had a mild heart attack. This was only a couple of months after two brain surgeries were they almost missed a bleed.
This is not about men versus women.
This is not a gender issue. We need to fix healthcare in this country for everyone!0 -
It absolutely is a gender issue (I'm male btw)I did read the post.
Did you not read mine?
25 legal abortions last year alone. Only 16 were immediate risk to life. Meaning 9 were not at risk.
As for the sexist comment at the end. I know of men who were misdiagnosed and mistreated in this healthcare system. Likewise if anything ever happened to my girlfriend do you not think I would suffer?
My grandfather sat on a bed in a hallway of one-off the bigger hospitals in Ireland. He had chest pains and was not seen by anyone because his chest pains were not constant. We had to lie and tell them the pain was constant just to get him seen to. He had a mild heart attack. This was only a couple of months after two brain surgeries were they almost missed a bleed.
This is not about men versus women.
This is not a gender issue. We need to fix healthcare in this country for everyone!
As it stands, you can have an MRI as needed. Your girlfriend if she is pregnant cannot, as I outlined earlier.0 -
Of course not. But likewise I don't wanna be pulled from the pool because I might drown.
Of course she would have been saved with an abortion but the report also states she should have Ben given one because the current law allows it.
Yet doctors, those that actually face the decision, continue to state that the current law is ambiguous and places them in a terrible position. Make the decision and face possible investigation and jail time, or do nothing and let the woman suffer the consequences.
I totally understand why they would opt for the second option, why make a martyr of yourself.
But even if one was to take the view that doctors would terminate without consequence in such a scenario, doesn't that position undermine the current No campaign?
Why would any no campaigner accept abortion under any circumstances, a life is a life, let the cards fall the way they fall. Once one agrees that abortions are required under certain circumstances, then the 8th needs to come out as straight away it is not what you believe.0 -
The proof will be in the future (as opposed to the pudding). If you are right, the coming decades will be better than the past. If I am right, the future will make the Magdalene laundries seem like paradise lost.I think there are hundreds of women that were forced through Magdalene laundries, thousands of children that were abused, many people that were shunned by their families and communities on the word of a priest that would seriously disagree with your statement.0 -
Advertisement
-
That's incorrect on two counts:Last year 25 legal abortions were carried out. 16 because of emergencies, 1 because of a threat of suicide and 8 because of the threat of physical illness.
That is nine people that had abortions last year and we're nowhere near deaths door.
You can believe what you like also. But I believe in facts and stats. Evidence you may call it.
1. That's the data for 2016, not 2017.
2. The actual text is, "when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman arising from a physical illness", or "when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman arising from suicide intent"
9 women did not get an abortion on 2016 because there was a risk to their health. They got an abortion because their lives were in actual danger.
The report is here, knock yourself out:
https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/PLDP-Annual-Report-2016.pdf
Please make sure you have your facts right before making statements that are so sure of themselves.0 -
realitykeeper wrote: »The proof will be in the future (as opposed to the pudding). If you are right, the coming decades will be better than the past. If I am right, the future will make the Magdalene laundries seem like paradise lost.
Ah yes, society will collapse when we legalize homosexuality, when we allow contraception, when we allow divorce, when we allow civil unions, when we put children's rights in the Constitution, when we allow gay marriage and now when we allow access to abortion services here.
It's the end times over and over again.0 -
realitykeeper wrote: »The proof will be in the future (as opposed to the pudding). If you are right, the coming decades will be better than the past. If I am right, the future will make the Magdalene laundries seem like paradise lost.
Its OT, but all we can go on is what we know. We know that the CC caused massive heartache and tore many peoples lives apart. We know they stood by when child rape was being practises. We know that until recently they sold the story that unbaptised children did not go to heaven.
We know that they still treat women as inferior to men. We know that they refuse to accept that contraception can aid health. We know that they forced unmarried mothers into magdalene laudries and made them slaves.
Based on all that we know, why would you think that of all things the Holy Church will be able to help in the future. They were given the keys and were found not only to be wanted, but in many cases to be actively working against the betterment of the very people entrusted to them.0 -
I did read the post.
Did you not read mine?
25 legal abortions last year alone. Only 16 were immediate risk to life. Meaning 9 were not at risk.
As for the sexist comment at the end. I know of men who were misdiagnosed and mistreated in this healthcare system. Likewise if anything ever happened to my girlfriend do you not think I would suffer?
My grandfather sat on a bed in a hallway of one-off the bigger hospitals in Ireland. He had chest pains and was not seen by anyone because his chest pains were not constant. We had to lie and tell them the pain was constant just to get him seen to. He had a mild heart attack. This was only a couple of months after two brain surgeries were they almost missed a bleed.
This is not about men versus women.
This is not a gender issue. We need to fix healthcare in this country for everyone!
again do you have a source that says that 9 occurred even when there was no immediate risk to life?0 -
Can you point out on what?
I actually find him very likeable personally, but in that programme I agree he struggled he looked frustrated and was barely allowed to finish a blooming sentence, he was treated horribly I would hardly blame him.
I think RTE would benefit from a fact check at the end of the show like the Tonight show on TV3 did, that pointed out 5 lies from the No side, and 1 from the Yes side.
I too would like to hear what lies Boylan told on the Claire Byrne show. Actual lies.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »Ah yes, society will collapse when we legalize homosexuality, when we allow contraception, when we allow divorce, when we allow civil unions, when we put children's rights in the Constitution, when we allow gay marriage and now when we allow access to abortion services here.
It's the end times over and over again.
Exactly, at what point should we simply stop listening to the boy who cries wolf.0 -
That's incorrect on two counts:
1. That's the data for 2016, not 2017.
2. The actual text is, "when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman arising from a physical illness", or "when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman arising from suicide intent"
9 women did not get an abortion on 2016 because there was a risk to their health. They got an abortion because their lives were in actual danger.
The report is here, knock yourself out:
https://health.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/PLDP-Annual-Report-2016.pdf
Please make sure you have your facts right before making statements that are so sure of themselves.
I am shocked, SHOCKED, that somebody on the No side has misused statistics or not understood what they meant.0 -
I did read the post.
Did you not read mine?
25 legal abortions last year alone. Only 16 were immediate risk to life. Meaning 9 were not at risk.
As for the sexist comment at the end. I know of men who were misdiagnosed and mistreated in this healthcare system. Likewise if anything ever happened to my girlfriend do you not think I would suffer?
My grandfather sat on a bed in a hallway of one-off the bigger hospitals in Ireland. He had chest pains and was not seen by anyone because his chest pains were not constant. We had to lie and tell them the pain was constant just to get him seen to. He had a mild heart attack. This was only a couple of months after two brain surgeries were they almost missed a bleed.
This is not about men versus women.
This is not a gender issue. We need to fix healthcare in this country for everyone!
Firstly, it’s not sexist, it’s factual. Secondly, it wasn’t framed as being about “men versus women”, it is a fact.
You can pretend it’s not a gender issue all you like, but that won’t change the fact that it very much is.
I’m sure you would suffer, but you have a chance to vote to greatly reduce the risk of it happening. You’ve mentioned men being mismanaged, misdiagnosed or mistreated, but that’s not what’s happening to these women. It’s not like medical staff don’t know what to do in these cases, they’re just not allowed to.
You’ve yet to provide sources for these women who weren’t at deaths door.0 -
Pretty much spot on.Its OT, but all we can go on is what we know. We know that the CC caused massive heartache and tore many peoples lives apart. We know they stood by when child rape was being practises. We know that until recently they sold the story that unbaptised children did not go to heaven.
We know that they still treat women as inferior to men. We know that they refuse to accept that contraception can aid health. We know that they forced unmarried mothers into magdalene laudries and made them slaves.
Based on all that we know, why would you think that of all things the Holy Church will be able to help in the future. They were given the keys and were found not only to be wanted, but in many cases to be actively working against the betterment of the very people entrusted to them.
Its easy to see why so many people are entirely disillusioned with the catholic church.
I would also say I have met some terrific priests over the years, really decent men who care greatly about their parishioners.
But the organisation as whole is pretty rotten to the core IMO.
I didnt realise myself until recently how many women died in the Magdelene laundries (Report in 2015 cited number as 1663 - absolutely horrendous).0 -
Advertisement
-
Do you think that was acceptable? Do you think it’s acceptable that pregnant women are routinely told that they’re not bad enough to be treated?
My grandfather sat on a bed in a hallway of one-off the bigger hospitals in Ireland. He had chest pains and was not seen by anyone because his chest pains were not constant. We had to lie and tell them the pain was constant just to get him seen to. He had a mild heart attack. This was only a couple of months after two brain surgeries were they almost missed a bleed.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement