Overheal wrote: » Midwife manager Ann Maria Burke tries to calm an upset Savita and explains that the termination cannot be carried out because Ireland is "a Catholic country"."[/I] Same day, the Attending Consultant who told her this was a Catholic country, By Astburys own admissions she would've terminated sooner if she felt it was *severe* sepsis, not just plain old sepsis(?!?) having previously denied the ability to perform a termination because "this is a catholic country,"
CruelCoin wrote: » "We 'gon let u die 'cuz Jebus" That's horrific reading.
Deleted User wrote: » From what I've read, the doctors failed to realise that she was in danger of dying from sepsis. Once they realised this, they performed an abortion but it was too little too late. The symptoms of sepsis are identical to that of pregnancy so its difficult to diagnose. It cannot be said with certainty that an earlier abortion would have saved her life. Women who have abortions die from it, women who give birth die from it, anyone who undergoes surgery can die from it. Sepsis is a common enough killer. I'm 100% pro repeal and pro choice but I do think her death has been used as a political tool. This is the conclusion I came to not too long ago when I did a bit of research. If I have this wrong, I'll gladly change my position.
Kumejima wrote: » Yeah I let my sarcasm get the better of me there. Look, it is what it is now and we'll all have to live with the result. I don't think there's any point in people on the NO side branding the YES side as baby muderers or the YES side painting all of us as religious mysoginistic bigots. It basically comes down to whether you believe an unborn child is a human being or not. If you think its a clump of cells, with no human qualities or "life" then taking the YES position is entirely reasonable. There's no "baby", hence no father whose rights you have to consider, so its only what the woman wants to do as a medical option that counts. Just to explain it from a No voters perspective. Most of us believe the unborn child is a human being. A living child. No lesser worth than a 1 year old toddler. Now, going from that supposition, that we're talking about a living child as opposed to a foetus, isn't it entirely reasonable that there are now three people in the equation. Isn't it entirely reasonable that one of those people shouldn't get to end the life of a child, especially as there is another parent involved. If it were a 1 year old child whose life was in the balance, isn't it entirely reasonable that a decent society would put the child's life at a higher priority that the womans right to choose? Why would you castigate someone for not wanting to see that child killed? This where people are talking past each other. One side thinks the others are happy to see toddlers murdered and the other thinks we want to use a clump of cells to control women's bodies for religious or misogynistic reasons. Both sides are outraged and bitterness can spill over understandably. We have to realise that the vast majority voted with good intentions. Maybe a few didn't but what can you do. Irish people are a caring and decent people. We might not agree with each other's stances, but lets try to see the good rather than the bad motives on the opposing side.
nice_guy80 wrote: » The Iona crowd getting more air time on RTE Why? Why?
Pac1Man wrote: » A lot of teary men in the celebration parades. 🀔
swampgas wrote: » Wild guess: they're very very litigious and RTE prefer to pander to them than risk a court case.
Deleted User wrote: » From what I've read, this isn't entirely true though
Overheal wrote: » They knew she was at risk for sepsis, she was on antibiotics. "Inevitable Miscarriage" was recorded on her records. The next day,"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. Midwife manager Ann Maria Burke tries to calm an upset Savita and explains that the termination cannot be carried out because Ireland is "a Catholic country"." The next morning,"Dr Uzockwu notes a foul-smelling discharge and diagnoses an infection of the foetal membranes. He puts Savita on stronger antibiotics and orders tests." Same day, the Attending Consultant who told her this was a Catholic country,"8.25am Another two hours pass and consultant Dr Astbury visits Savita. She does not read the notes herself and is not told about the discharge by the register looking after Savita, Dr Anne Helps. She is told about the infection diagnosis and expresses concern. She says she may have to carry out a termination despite the heartbeat. More tests are ordered and more antibiotics prescribed. Sepsis is diagnosed, rather than severe sepsis, because her blood pressure is not low. She told the inquest she would have carried out a termination sooner had she been told about the discharge." By Astburys own admissions she would've terminated sooner if she felt it was *severe* sepsis, not just plain old sepsis(?!?) having previously denied the ability to perform a termination because "this is a catholic country," believing " "in this country it is not legal to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of poor prognosis for a foetus." That poor prognosis being an "inevitable miscarriage." The 8th amendment quite demonstrably played a heavy influence on the poor judgement of the attending consultant, which resulted in Savita's death. I fail to see how anything less is in dispute.
ArmaniJeanss wrote: » They make it easy for TV - they will always have someone available ready to go on, at any kind of notice, fully prepped. They make it easier for the print media as well, a journalist filing a copy for a deadline has a choice to either a) ring around for a few quotes and spend time on hold/chasing people or b) look at his faxmachine/inbox where someone from Iona will already have sent in some soundbites on whatever todays big moral story is.
SusieBlue wrote: » She was having a miscarriage. There was no hope for the baby. She was left in hospital for a week, at the start of which she requested an abortion to speed up the inevitable. She was refused and made sit there waiting for her baby to die, a few extra requests for an abortion were also denied. She was left to suffer, developed sepsis, and died. If she had been granted an abortion when she first requested one she wouldn’t have developed sepsis and woulda have died. It’s that simple.
spookwoman wrote: » This was Mary Butlers Election leaflet from 2016. No mention of her pro life stance. I wonder would she have gotten in if she had been truthful
pleas advice wrote: » Huh, same answer as Leo Varadkar.
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » While Mary didn,t specify her views on abortion in her election leaflets, prior to the last general election all candidates were asked to complete/take part an online survey on whichcandidate.ie to give their views on the various issues some candidiates took part in that online survey while others didn,t . Mary took part in that online survey & gave her reply to the issue of abortion " as only when the mothers life is at risk from illness or suicide " . Link is provided to Mary,s profile from whichcandidate.ie .http://whichcandidate.ie/events/5/constituencies/48/candidates/296
spookwoman wrote: » How many people actually went online and checked that page. Its the first time I've heard of that page. Thei main page is tacky as hell and doesnt look like a proper government site. Edit Bit more looking into it. It only ran nation wide in 2016 WhichCandidate is based in the Department of Politics and Public Administration at the University of Limerick. Our primary media partner is The Irish Times. We work closely with the political staff of The Irish Times in identifying the relevant issues in each election. The Irish Times also provides coverage for WhichCandidate during election campaigns, and publishes our analyses of the policy positions of voters and candidates. For the General Election 2016, we will also be partnering with local media outlets throughout the country.
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: » The fact is, a finding of medical negligence is an extremely difficult outcome, and I wonder how many people are even aware of its relevance in the case of Savita Halappanavar? Her medical team were perfectly entitled to terminate her pregnancy; as it transpires, they were actually at fault for NOT having done so.
kunst nugget wrote: » Why are you targeting her in particular? There were plenty of politicians that adopted a pro-life stance. The pro-choice side won and I'm delighted with that but deciding to name and shame politicians that didn't agree with that stance is tacky imo.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d3e92925f7bde702415f91ea088d4f7a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e0a528cbc0a6c66fda22b51f3da0d9d1.svg)
