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; } } }

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Ozymandius2011

This is for people who have already voted in the referendum. How did you vote? I voted yes.

Mod: This thread is little more than a survey about how you voted. Please don't the ins and outs of abortion.

Mod: This is not a reiteration of the previous 8th threads. If you were threadbanned from those, you are not threadbanned here.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Igotadose

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There's an opinion piece on The Journal from the head of the NAGP where he states: "
We know the majority of GPs in Ireland prefer an-opt in service, as this finding has been replicated in three polls of GPs to date.

We also know that 20% of GPs would be willing to provide an abortion service when required. This is enough to provide a service to the women of Ireland in their own locality."

The title is, "'Abortion is not part of routine general practice. 85% of GPs are of this opinion'"

So... 85% of GP's believe abortion is not part of routine general practice. Well, that feels like a 'duh' moment to me - it *has* been illegal until now, and technically is still illegal.

20% of GPs are willing, per the editorial, and the editorial goes on to state that this will require some resourcing - no surprise there. The head of the association would like it to be an 'opt-in' service. I don't find that objectionable. He does not say anything about referrals, but the Taoiseach laid that to rest the other day.

So, what we have is:
National Association of GP's wants Doctors to opt-in to providing abortion services, and that they be properly trained and resourced. That seems very reasonable to me. Polling by the NAGP shows 20% of Doctors ready for this, which seems plenty to me, and as time goes on, more will likely opt-in.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/medical-abortion-is-not-part-of-routine-general-practice-85-of-gps-are-of-this-opinion-4064057-Jun2018/?utm_source=shortlink

.......

This post has been deleted.

spookwoman

Annabella1 wrote: »

There are no plans in the UK for a GP based service despite having abortion for 40 years
This 'GP based service' was pre election Government spin to make it palatable to the electorate

No it wasn't "spin"

It comes after a group of medical professionals from the Royal College of Nursing Congress called for this change in law last year, claiming the current restrictions are “needlessly intrusive” and women should be able to take the abortion pill at home instead.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/abortion-pills-everything-you-need-to-know/
Scotland allow women to take the pill at home "“Scotland is now the only part of the UK to offer women the opportunity to take misoprostol at home when this is clinically appropriate, a decision that allows women to be in control of their treatment and as comfortable as possible during this procedure.”
"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/26/women-scotland-allowed-take-abortion-pill-at-home

Annabella1 wrote: »

Simply take a few pills and all will be fine and dandy.Nice and cheap and out of sight

Who is saying that it will be fine and dandy and that its out of sight out of mind?
One of the reasons why RCN would for women to take the pills at home is so they can do it in comfort, where there is a little less stress etc.

Annabella1 wrote: »

GP's here are having none of it. They want the best care for women
They have zero access to proper counselling and public ultrasound to confirm dates as it stands
If 75% GP's do not participate but are happy to refer - the Government will need a Plan B

I would disagree with that, if they wanted best possible care for women they would see that abortion is part of routine general practice. It's medical care especially when crises pregnancies impact on the physical and mental health of their patients.
Roughly the same amount of women that travel to the uk daily will avail of the pills and like those women who went to the uk if they require counselling they access it the same way they do now. There is not going to be a major influx of women needing counselling because they had an abortion, that is just scaremongering. Same with ultrasounds clearblue is pretty accurate and again most women will seek an abortion early on and won't need ultrasound confirmation for 12 weeks.

Fighting Tao

Oh won’t someone think of the poor doctors!

[Deleted User]

I have to say, I'm not surprised that those who voted in favour of choice, are now vehemently anti choice when it comes to conscientious objection.

Realistically speaking, certainly in rural areas, doctors have often signed open letters either in favour of, or against, repealing the 8th.

Accordingly, I doubt if many pro choice doctors would have a problem with an opt in system.

My husband's niece is a nurse - and pro-life. She has already decided to transfer from obgyn, and she is not alone.

So, what happens when pro life doctors and nurses refuse to work in areas where they are obliged to go against their conscience by referring patients?
Will such an eventuality be in any way beneficial to women? I don't think so.
I think many women, who do not require abortion services will, at best, be denied the help of some excellent doctors and nurses, just because some people are determined to force their choice on other people - which is downright hypocritical.

If people are really in favour of choice, then they need to be consistent in that view, imo.

Anything else is anti-choice, not the best outcome for all women, and triumphalist, tbh

Fighting Tao

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have to say, I'm not surprised that those who voted in favour of choice, are now vehemently anti choice when it comes to conscientious objection.

Realistically speaking, certainly in rural areas, doctors have often signed open letters either in favour of, or against, repealing the 8th.

Accordingly, I doubt if many pro choice doctors would have a problem with an opt in system.

My husband's niece is a nurse - and pro-life. She has already decided to transfer from obgyn, and she is not alone.

So, what happens when pro life doctors and nurses refuse to work in areas where they are obliged to go against their conscience by referring patients?
Will such an eventuality be in any way beneficial to women? I don't think so.
I think many women, who do not require abortion services will, at best, be denied the help of some excellent doctors and nurses, just because some people are determined to force their choice on other people - which is downright hypocritical.

If people are really in favour of choice, then they need to be consistent in that view, imo.

Anything else is anti-choice, not the best outcome for all women, and triumphalist, tbh

People do things as part of their jobs every day that they don’t agree with. It’s their job so they do it or leave. Why should people working in healthcare be any different? Why should they pick and choose who they want to treat and why? They are paid to do a job, not to judge. If they don’t like it then they should get a different career.

Igotadose

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to say, I'm not surprised that those who voted in favour of choice, are now vehemently anti choice when it comes to conscientious objection.

A does not follow B. The referendum wasn't about choice. Catch up, will you? It was about removing a terrible clause from the constitution in order to allow for legislation to be created.

The no-bots are now doing this 'nyah, nyah see you're against choice' chant on various boards & so forth. What a farce.

Realistically speaking, certainly in rural areas, doctors have often signed open letters either in favour of, or against, repealing the 8th.

And this matter how for what a Doctor should do? As I've repeatedly stated, Doctors that won't provide abortion should put up signs in their offices advertising such.

Accordingly, I doubt if many pro choice doctors would have a problem with an opt in system.

Projecting. Any data? Only data we have is the polls done by the NAGP quoted earlier. They didn't distinguish based on the doctor's position viz. the repeal vote. I would expect the vast majority of Doctors to be pro-abortion, more than the electorate, actually. I expect only a small minority to be anti-abortion.

My husband's niece is a nurse - and pro-life. She has already decided to transfer from obgyn, and she is not alone.

This is a very positive outcome. Medical "professionals" unwilling to provide medical care to women unecumbered by zealotry should be removed from the system.

So, what happens when pro life doctors and nurses refuse to work in areas where they are obliged to go against their conscience by referring patients?

They get replaced. All good. They hate women and shouldn't be involved with their medical care.

Will such an eventuality be in any way beneficial to women? I don't think so.

It absolutely will.

I think many women, who do not require abortion services will, at best, be denied the help of some excellent doctors and nurses, just because some people are determined to force their choice on other people - which is downright hypocritical.

A again doesn't follow B. If they're unwilling to provide health care to women unencumbered by zealotry, women will be better off. There's no proof they're excellent at their jobs - just conjecture. Having spoken with many women about the bad old days of Irish gynaecology, getting rid of the anti-abortion types is all good.

If people are really in favour of choice, then they need to be consistent in that view, imo.

This is about providing medical care.

Anything else is anti-choice, not the best outcome for all women, and triumphalist, tbh

No-bots talking about choice. *rofl*

topper75

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Even in 1983 - nobody NOOOOBODY argued that a fetus is more important than the mother. Let's get real here.

Oh and a foetus is a human kid, it's hardly a baby rat.

_Dara_

topper75 wrote: »

Nobody ever talked about the fetus being MORE valuable. That is one pretty shameful strawman argument in your post - probably the worst I have seen any debate on here.

Guys?
I was referring to the kids who were killed because they weren't convenient.

But that was the reality. Whenever medical care was withheld from a pregnant woman in order not to harm a foetus, at that moment, the rights of the foetus superseded the rights of the woman. Not a strawman at all.

Yeah_Right

topper75 wrote: »

Oh and a foetus is a human kid, it's hardly a baby rat.

A foetus is a human baby goat??? Now you've got me really confused.

Kiwi in IE

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to say, I'm not surprised that those who voted in favour of choice, are now vehemently anti choice when it comes to conscientious objection.

Realistically speaking, certainly in rural areas, doctors have often signed open letters either in favour of, or against, repealing the 8th.

Accordingly, I doubt if many pro choice doctors would have a problem with an opt in system.

My husband's niece is a nurse - and pro-life. She has already decided to transfer from obgyn, and she is not alone.

So, what happens when pro life doctors and nurses refuse to work in areas where they are obliged to go against their conscience by referring patients?
Will such an eventuality be in any way beneficial to women? I don't think so.
I think many women, who do not require abortion services will, at best, be denied the help of some excellent doctors and nurses, just because some people are determined to force their choice on other people - which is downright hypocritical.

If people are really in favour of choice, then they need to be consistent in that view, imo.

Anything else is anti-choice, not the best outcome for all women, and triumphalist, tbh

I have no problem with conscientious objectors, but as a pregnant woman in early pregnancy, I do not want to be treated by anyone who puts being ‘pro life’ above the ethics of their profession. Do I have the right to request that ‘pro life’ medical personal are identified to me, so that I can conscientiously object to being treated by them?

Obgyn is not the place for anyone who views a foetus as being of equal value, with the same right to life, as the woman carrying it and will insist on practicing in accordance with those beliefs.

Annabella1

spookwoman wrote: »

No it wasn't "spin"

Who is saying that it will be fine and dandy and that its out of sight out of mind?
One of the reasons why RCN would for women to take the pills at home is so they can do it in comfort, where there is a little less stress etc.

I would disagree with that, if they wanted best possible care for women they would see that abortion is part of routine general practice. It's medical care especially when crises pregnancies impact on the physical and mental health of their patients.
Roughly the same amount of women that travel to the uk daily will avail of the pills and like those women who went to the uk if they require counselling they access it the same way they do now. There is not going to be a major influx of women needing counselling because they had an abortion, that is just scaremongering. Same with ultrasounds clearblue is pretty accurate and again most women will seek an abortion early on and won't need ultrasound confirmation for 12 weeks.

Suggest you read the guardian article
The pills are still prescribed by the hospital with full back up with the lady taking the 2nd course of pills at home
GP’s do not prescribe in the UK

Fighting Tao

Annabella1 wrote: »

Suggest you read the guardian article
The pills are still prescribed by the hospital with full back up with the lady taking the 2nd course of pills at home
GP’s do not prescribe in the UK

So before the referendum we didn’t want to do what the UK does and now we should do exactly as the UK does?

Taytoland

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to say, I'm not surprised that those who voted in favour of choice, are now vehemently anti choice when it comes to conscientious objection.

Realistically speaking, certainly in rural areas, doctors have often signed open letters either in favour of, or against, repealing the 8th.

Accordingly, I doubt if many pro choice doctors would have a problem with an opt in system.

My husband's niece is a nurse - and pro-life. She has already decided to transfer from obgyn, and she is not alone.

So, what happens when pro life doctors and nurses refuse to work in areas where they are obliged to go against their conscience by referring patients?
Will such an eventuality be in any way beneficial to women? I don't think so.
I think many women, who do not require abortion services will, at best, be denied the help of some excellent doctors and nurses, just because some people are determined to force their choice on other people - which is downright hypocritical.

If people are really in favour of choice, then they need to be consistent in that view, imo.

Anything else is anti-choice, not the best outcome for all women, and triumphalist, tbh

I saw a documentary on BBC three and the scenes in Dublin castle with the leftists celebrating really would just make the blood boil for the pro life side, so I don't blame them if they refuse or find a way of not doing it.

mcmoustache

Taytoland wrote: »

I saw a documentary on BBC three and the scenes in Dublin castle with the leftists celebrating really would just make the blood boil for the pro life side, so I don't blame them if they refuse or find a way of not doing it.

Are two thirds of the country all leftists? What is it these days with anyone who's not stuck in the past being labeled a leftist? It's getting a little tiresome.

captbarnacles

Wth is a leftist?

nice_guy80

captbarnacles wrote: »

Wth is a leftist?

They pleasure themselves with their left hand, mainly

Nettle Soup

This storm is a sign from god that he was unhappy with the vote...albeit a bit late.

Loafing Oaf

captbarnacles wrote: »

Wth is a leftist?

One of those, y’know, nudge nudge, wink wink.

Sweetemotion

mcmoustache wrote: »

Are two thirds of the country all leftists? What is it these days with anyone who's not stuck in the past being labeled a leftist? It's getting a little tiresome.

Two thirds of the country voted yes because they knew it was the right thing to do and the only way to help the women of rape, incest and pregnancy abnormalities.

The leftists were the people at Dublin Castle with purple hair making up stupid songs dressed as fairies and claiming a victory over patriarchy.

iguana

Deleted User wrote: »

My husband's niece is a nurse - and pro-life. She has already decided to transfer from obgyn, and she is not alone.

So, what happens when pro life doctors and nurses refuse to work in areas where they are obliged to go against their conscience by referring patients?
Will such an eventuality be in any way beneficial to women? I don't think so.
I think many women, who do not require abortion services will, at best, be denied the help of some excellent doctors and nurses, just because some people are determined to force their choice on other people - which is downright hypocritical.

There aren't any circumstances outside of the tragic where I would ever choose to have an abortion. Depending on the circumstances, I even think I'd be relatively open to continuing a pregnancy conceived through rape. But I sure as hell don't ever want to be treated by a doctor that doesn't consider me as the primary patient. That doesn't put my decisions about my body ahead of their personal morals. A doctor or nurse that can't treat me as an actual human being first and foremost sure as hell isn't one I'd want to treat an ingrown toenail never mind someone I'd want with their hands in my vagina.

So it's a wonderful, wonderful thing that your niece in law is leaving that field of medicine. The women of Ireland are a lot better off when a nurse realises that her morals prevent her from doing her job correctly so changes her job. That's how it should be. I don't agree with her stance but I absolutely applaud her action. Well done her!:)

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Nettle Soup wrote: »

This storm is a sign from god that he was unhappy with the vote...albeit a bit late.

And it aimed directly at Donegal?

Taytoland

mcmoustache wrote: »

Taytoland wrote: »

I saw a documentary on BBC three and the scenes in Dublin castle with the leftists celebrating really would just make the blood boil for the pro life side, so I don't blame them if they refuse or find a way of not doing it.

Are two thirds of the country all leftists? What is it these days with anyone who's not stuck in the past being labeled a leftist? It's getting a little tiresome.

They all look the same, purple hair, dress similar, dripping in leftism. But that was just Dublin castle.

Wrongway1985

Deleted User wrote: »

I have to say, I'm not surprised that those who voted in favour of choice, are now vehemently anti choice when it comes to conscientious objection.

Deleted User wrote: »

If people are really in favour of choice, then they need to be consistent in that view, imo.

Anything else is anti-choice, not the best outcome for all women, and triumphalist, tbh

:pac::pac::pac:

Absolutely laughable tbh :pac:

By that logic anyone who was anti-choice should be consistent too no bringing pro-life morals to work they don't get a say? Pretty unfair don't you think?...

...You should know full well that garbage posted isn't representative of those who voted yes...if you actually don't I feel sorta sorry for you.

Consciences objection should be respected of course,referral is respecting that objection not sure how you can't see that...oh yeah you can't because it wouldn't suit your agenda. :pac:

Sweetemotion

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

Consciences objection should be respected of course,referral is respecting that objection not sure how you can't see that...oh yeah you can't because it wouldn't suit your agenda. :pac:

That's your personal opinion not fact.

Wrongway1985

Sweetemotion wrote: »

That's your personal opinion not fact.

How so?

It was said before the referendum a Yes vote would see consciousness objectors forced to carry out requests as the health service resources wouldn't allow otherwise.

Now that a Yes vote was guaranteed the goalposts moved, referral is now deemed even a step too far supposedly.

What is this fact? enlighten me!

spookwoman

Annabella1 wrote: »

Suggest you read the guardian article
The pills are still prescribed by the hospital with full back up with the lady taking the 2nd course of pills at home
GP’s do not prescribe in the UK

I said docs but I use that as a general term for hospital / clinic etc.
I also said the RCN would like to see women being able to take the pills at home. I am using it as an example of what is being suggested in the UK but this is not the UK this is Ireland.

On another note about doctors objecting in IRELAND as it is there can be a weeks wait to see your own doctor then add the extra time if you have to go else where. Then there is the issue where many doctors will not take on new patients so what are these women supposed to do? If a doctor is getting money from the state eg to provide care to medical card carriers and care doc services then they should have to provide abortion services. If they don't like it then they can go fully private, notify their patients and put up a sign saying they object to abortions and they will not provide them.

Cabaal

Fighting Tao wrote: »

So before the referendum we didn’t want to do what the UK does and now we should do exactly as the UK does?

Before the ref the no side were fine with the local post man giving pills to women. They never once looked for any woman to be charged for illegally importing and using.

Now they don't trust a qualified GP.

Laughable.

Sweetemotion

Cabaal wrote: »

Before the ref the no side were fine with the local post man giving pills to women. They never once looked for any woman to be charged for illegally importing and using.

Now they don't trust a qualified GP.

Laughable.

Nobody was fine with the post man giving pills to women.

Sweetemotion

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

How so?

It was said before the referendum a Yes vote would see consciousness objectors forced to carry out requests as the health service resources wouldn't allow otherwise.

Now that a Yes vote was guaranteed the goalposts moved, referral is now deemed even a step too far supposedly.

What is this fact? enlighten me!

That was a lie, do you actually think that the government are going to remove the licenses from general practitioners?