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

iguana

topper75 wrote: »

They mispresented a late diagnosis of sepsis as an either/or case with the late Indian lady in Galway.

Let up on this already. It's why you lost. Professor Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, THE HEAD OF THE ENQUIRY INTO HER DEATH, made it clear that the 8th was the main cause of her death. He knows more about why she died than any other person on this earth so constantly attempting to contradict him is both stupid and evil. And the vast, vast majority of this country saw through that. The vast majority of this country cared about that woman, about why she died and the minute they got a chance to change they law, they did. Overwhelmingly. The fact that the no side keeps on lying about her disgusts people on just about every single level. I've talked to a lot of middle aged and elderly people since the referendum and each and everyone of them has told me they voted yes in large part because of her.

Your side think that the Yes campaign used her. We didn't. We, like most people in the country, actually cared about her. Maybe you somehow lack the empathy to care about her, maybe it's sexism because there is a lot of clear women hating sneaking out in this campaign. Or maybe it's racism because an awful lot of the pro-lifers made it clear that they didn't feel non-white Irish women are relevant. But either way, your utter lack of care about the fact that a law you supported killed a woman is evident. And because you don't care about her, you assume none of us can either. But we do. Her death was devastating for those of us who wonder if we had fought harder in the preceding years could we have saved her. And it was certainly a point for most people in this country to say 'no more.'

The fact that you keep on denying and lying about her death disgusts people. More people than you can imagine and more than you can imagine. And bear this in mind. What you write online is most likely permanent and nothing is truly anonymous. 30-40-50 years from now your grandkids could be curious for an insight into your life and could trace that post back to you. What they will read will be a deliberate denial of how women's medical care was dangerously effected by the 8th despite all the evidence to the contrary. And a deliberate denial of not just why Savita Hallappanavar died but a refusal to use her name, which you can't not know, and a dehumanising of her by calling her that Indian woman in Galway. And the odds are that they will be even less impressed by sexism and racism than we are.

Zubeneschamali

iguana wrote: »

And the vast, vast majority of this country saw through that.

Indeed. Back when Savita's death was reported in the Irish times, a thread was started here: https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056806680

The very first response, 2 minutes after the thread was started, blamed Youth Defence and got 354 thanks.

Everyone knew from the minute they read the story exactly what had happened, and all the pro-life bullsh!t on the subject convinced absolutely nobody since.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Nettle Soup

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have personally seen evidence that people refused to believe the 8th killed Savita because of racism.
There are many people in Galway that simply viewed her a "foreign troublemaker". Mainly older people tp be fair. I could not comprehend it.

WillContribute

Martina1991 wrote: »

The urine pregnancy tests give positive results based on the presence of the hormone Beta HCG.

A blood sample, taken at the GP surgery is more accurate and has specific reference ranges based on gestation.

Agreed.

A blood test can be ordered up by a doctor, and in a few days would give a more accurate result, up to about 6-8 weeks. +- 1 or 2 weeks. Ideally two blood samples should be taken separated by 2 or 3 days but one sample would give an approx gestation age.

The reference ranges overlap so much after 6 weeks, that they serve just to confirm the pregnancy is well established, not just starting. Values depend on each person. The ranges are in the following document.

https://www.wellingtonscl.co.nz/interpretation-hcg-pregnancy-not-exact-science

Any doubt, I'd expect referral to a consultant, specialist midwife, specialist clinic to confirm/establish duration. The proposal is to make the doctor legally responsible to certify the gestation age as below 12 weeks.

Ultrasound is the gold standard against which everything else is compared.

To the initial Q, spookwoman, a basic ultrasound costs in the order of 20K+ euro (2nd hand 10K+) and will have service and maintenance requirements attached. Doubt it regular GPs will be getting these, certainly maternity hospitals and specialist clinics or maybe the 60 the Leo Varadkar suggested?

http://www.costowl.com/healthcare/healthcare-ultrasound-machine-costs.html

bronte

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I have personally seen evidence that people refused to believe the 8th killed Savita because of racism.
There are many people in Galway that simply viewed her a "foreign troublemaker". Mainly older people tp be fair. I could not comprehend it.

Worst I heard was an "older" friend of my parents say "It was probably something she ate that killed her" and "Those Indians eat all kinds of strange things"

I was gobsmacked and had to walk away. The casual racism and utter stupidity was too much.

spookwoman

WillContribute wrote: »

Agreed.

A blood test can be ordered up by a doctor, and in a few days would give a more accurate result, up to about 6-8 weeks. +- 1 or 2 weeks. Ideally two blood samples should be taken separated by 2 or 3 days but one sample would give an approx gestation age.

The reference ranges overlap so much after 6 weeks, that they serve just to confirm the pregnancy is well established, not just starting. Values depend on each person. The ranges are in the following document.

https://www.wellingtonscl.co.nz/interpretation-hcg-pregnancy-not-exact-science

Any doubt, I'd expect referral to a consultant, specialist midwife, specialist clinic to confirm/establish duration. The proposal is to make the doctor legally responsible to certify the gestation age as below 12 weeks.

Ultrasound is the gold standard against which everything else is compared.

To the initial Q, spookwoman, a basic ultrasound costs in the order of 20K+ euro (2nd hand 10K+) and will have service and maintenance requirements attached. Doubt it regular GPs will be getting these, certainly maternity hospitals and specialist clinics or maybe the 60 the Leo Varadkar suggested?

http://www.costowl.com/healthcare/healthcare-ultrasound-machine-costs.html

and as I said.

spookwoman wrote: »

And....???
It tells them they are pregnant "so their product tells you 1-2 weeks, 2-3 weeks, 3+ weeks." They can refer a woman to another service to find out the stage of the pregnancy further just like any other woman who is 3+ weeks pregnant and wants to keep it. The only difference is if it falls in the 12 week limit she should be able to go back to her gp and get abortion pills if she wants.

The other thing is if women are not able to access ultra sounds etc in a timely fashion when they want an abortion you can guarantee someone will take it to court as it would be infringing on their rights. But we all know there are about 10 women who travel to the UK to get abortions every week I doubt that many women are going to put an extra strain on our system. Also there are many GP centers that have ultrasounds so again I cant see this as being a problem.

[Deleted User]

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

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.

I can understand your position, though I personally had a strongly pro-life consultant for each of my pregnancies, by choice.

However, I neither understand, nor accept, this adamant requirement on the "pro-choice" side, that requires that another person does not have a choice.

There are doctors who have already announced thewy are willing to assist in abortion. There are undoubtedly nurses who feel the same.

The pro-choice argument has been that legalising abortion will not lead to an increase in abortions. Therefore, why this requirement that 100% of GPs and Nurses are willing to participate, through referral, in something they clearly conscientiously object to?

iguana wrote: »

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!:)

Where are you getting this primary patient bit?
Pro-life doctors regard both patients equally.

Are you seriously suggesting you would refuse to have an ingrown toenail treated by a pro-life doctor? That really doesn't make a lot of sense....

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

: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:

Referral is not respecting that objection.
There is no shortage of doctors willing to opt-in. It's not that difficult to look up a list in this day and age, surely?

spookwoman wrote: »

Off the shelf pregnancy tests are pretty accurate on dating these days and most women seek an abortion before 12 weeks.

Strange my daughter was referred to hospital by her GP recently to obtain an accurate date, then...

.......

This post has been deleted.

Igotadose

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Hypothetical situation: Dr. Lochlach is the trauma surgeon in an Emergency room. Gunshot patient brought in. Shot after he's brutally murdered 6 pregnant women in a fit of rage while spouting "Burn down the Church! Kill all the priests!"

Does Dr. Lochlach get to CHOOSE not to adminster health care to him?

Of course not. This isn't what choice is about. Lochlach is just trolling with this and his invented facts about the referendum.

[Deleted User]

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Somewhere between 80% and 85% of doctors don't want to participate in abortion.

Just how do you propose we replace the percentage we lose?
Same applies to nurses. We already have a shortage.
Yet, for the miniscule percentage of their time spent in facilitating abortion, you propose that all the other procedures they carry out be eliminated - because of your moral beliefs? Incredible!

....... wrote: »

But if you are going to work in a role that requires medical care for pregnant women - then no - you should not have a choice to pick and choose whether or not you wish to refer on. Its part of the job. There is no medical condition I can think of where it would be deemed acceptable for a doctor to say "I dont agree with this morally so I am not referring you on". None. And nor should there be. Keep personal morals out of the workplace.

Personal choice is a lot different to professional choice when you are providing a service.

It is being made part of the job.
It most certainly was not part of the job when these doctors and nurses trained, and took the hippocratic oath.

What you are proposing is that the Government should change a contract of employment - just because you say so!

I could understand your viewpoint if there was a lack of doctors or nurses willing to "opt-in".
Since there is absolutely no evidence of this, your position is absolutist, triumphalist, - and completely anti choice.

....... wrote: »

Nothing to do with an increase in abortions and everything to do with respecting the rights of women to access to medical care in their own country. Respectful access. Not access they have to be shamed about or have difficulty in using.

Those rights would only be denied if there was a lack of medical personnel willing to participate in abortion. If 15% of doctors are willing to participate in abortion, there is no need whatsoever to force (or try to force) the remainder to participate.

If abortions are going to take up the miniscule amount of time that the pro-choice movement claim it will - 15% of doctors is more than adequate.
Nothing to do with respectful access, nothing to do with shaming, merely a matter of sufficient personnel being available, and showing respect to those who those who provide an excellent service for those who do not require abortions.

....... wrote: »

Fetuses are not patients. A patient is a person. A born person.

A foetus is a developing baby, and I certainly would never have wished to attend a doctor who didn't regard my unborn children as patients.

Nor do my daughters.

You have an opinion, to which you are entitled.
What you are not entitled to do is force your opinion on me, or anyone else.

....... wrote: »

I would have no interest in financially supporting a business that wishes to view women as second class citizens. Not for an ingrown toenail or anything else. Same as I wouldnt send money to Iona.

That is entirely your own choice.

Personally, I would tend to look for the best doctor available for the procedure I required, and only consider whether a doctor failed to regard the unborn as patients, in the event of pregnancy - which is both logical, and tolerant of others beliefs.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Soeone on the pro-choice side said earlier in the thread (or one of the other threads) that doctors would only avarage 1-2 patients per year.

Yet, you propose they should resign their jobs because they disagree with a position that is allegedly pro-choice?
Impartial observance of that position would tend to regard it as both fundamentalist, and absolutist tbh.

Igotadose wrote: »

Hypothetical situation: Dr. Lochlach is the trauma surgeon in an Emergency room. Gunshot patient brought in. Shot after he's brutally murdered 6 pregnant women in a fit of rage while spouting "Burn down the Church! Kill all the priests!"

Does Dr. Lochlach get to CHOOSE not to adminster health care to him?

Of course not. This isn't what choice is about. Lochlach is just trolling with this and his invented facts about the referendum.

Dr Lochlach is not a "He" - and any pro-life doctor will automatically save a life.

Your post is an absolute strawman, since there is absolutely no parallel between saving a life, and participating in abortion on demand.

Sofiztikated

Deleted User wrote: »

Somewhere between 80% and 85% of doctors don't want to participate in abortion.

Source

It is being made part of the job.
It most certainly was not part of the job when these doctors and nurses trained, and took the hippocratic oath.

Doctors and nurses in Ireland do not swear the hippocratic oath, and I assume you are talking about the "Firstly, do no harm", which isn't in the oath.

Igotadose

Deleted User wrote: »

Dr Lochlach is not a "He" - and any pro-life doctor will automatically save a life.

Sorry about that

Your post is an absolute strawman, since there is absolutely no parallel between saving a life, and participating in abortion on demand.

Tell that to Savita Halanappavar.

Your simplistic view of CHOICE is just that - doctors can't arbitrarily decide based on their consciences, whether to administer medical care or not.

Igotadose

Sinn Fein votes at their Ard Fheis to not allow free vote in the Dail on the upcoming abortion legislation:
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0616/970911-sinn-fein-ard-fheis/

Good for Sinn Fein.

spookwoman

Igotadose wrote: »

Sinn Fein votes at their Ard Fheis to not allow free vote in the Dail on the upcoming abortion legislation:
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0616/970911-sinn-fein-ard-fheis/

Good for Sinn Fein.

How many of these protesters vote SF in the first place, probably non .

I wonder will Sinn Féin councillor Pat Fitzgerald from Waterford leave SF now. He was one of the County Councillors in that photo. Front right.

https://twitter.com/Ocionnaith/status/1007945870338351104

FrancieBrady

spookwoman wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Ocionnaith/status/1007945870338351104

That worked out well...:D

Cabaal

Protesting using the same posters and lies that lost them the ref, they've learned nothing.

You can garuntee they'll be picketing GP clinics as soon as they can, happy to invade people's privacy and upset people.

Sheeps

Cabaal wrote: »

Protesting using the same posters and lies that lost them the ref, they've learned nothing.

You can garuntee they'll be picketing GP clinics as soon as they can, happy to invade people's privacy and upset people.

Yes, how dare they feel strongly for something that counters popular opinion?

eviltwin

Sheeps wrote: »

Yes, how dare they feel strongly for something that counters popular opinion?

They are entitled to have their views. They are not entitled to harass and bully those who don't share them. Protesting outside doctors clinics and hospitals doesn't achieve anything other than upsetting and intimidating service users but I suspect that's the real motivation here.

Bridge93

You have to laugh at those suggesting the whole thing was rigged. Please join the real world asap.

As for those on Twatter talking about consciousness objection. That's not how democracy and the law works I'm afraid. You can't opt out of laws.

_Dara_

Cabaal wrote: »

Protesting using the same posters and lies that lost them the ref, they've learned nothing.

You can garuntee they'll be picketing GP clinics as soon as they can, happy to invade people's privacy and upset people.

Most No voters are respectful, normal people but I do worry about the few loony bins out there.

I never expected that every doctor would provide abortion services. I thought that a few scattered around each county would easy suffice. But those doctors that will provide this legal service should be allowed to do so without harassment. I honestly feel concerned for those practices. It only takes one nutter to do harm. It seems like it would be impossible to keep practices that provide abortion services on the down-low.

_Dara_

Bridge93 wrote: »

You have to laugh at those suggesting the whole thing was rigged. Please join the real world asap.

As for those on Twatter talking about consciousness objection. That's not how democracy and the law works I'm afraid. You can't opt out of laws.

Those people are nuts. The wires have come loose in their heads. I do think a small proportion of home-to-voters weren’t eligible and shouldn’t have voted but their absence would not have changed the result.

As for conscientious objection, I actually don’t mind doctors abstaining from what is an elective service. But on Twatter, you’d swear that the conscientious objectors are in the vast majority the way some loony toons are going on. There’s all dramatic pronouncements about leaving their surgery for an ‘ethical practice’ if they find out that theirs provides abortions. Ah lads, the practices that provide them could outnumber those that don’t. And Yes voters might provide traffic the other way, leaving practices that don’t provide the service.

Loafing Oaf

_Dara_ wrote: »

It seems like it would be impossible to keep practices that provide abortion services on the down-low.

The way to go might be to let the service roll out piecemeal, with GPs that provide abortions not necessarily publicising it from day one. Then maybe a year or so down the road when the thing is kind of established release a list of participating GPs. That way you might be able to wrongfoot wannabe protestors.

WillContribute

The current concept of making Conscientious Objectors(CO) refer/recommend patients to other providers puzzles me. (Unless I've missed something today, out of coverage for a good bit)

COs don't want anything to do with abortion. They will not provide it, have decided not to study its methods and will very likely not be attending CPD(Continuous Prof. Development) courses or seminars on it. Likewise they will not be that savy on the local situation vis a vis who's doing it, where is busy, where's open etc.

And now they ARE the people to make referrals/ recommendations to patients that might arrive at their practice, and their patient must follow that referral.

Apologies for the references but this is so bizarre, it needs a little humour.

This is akin to arriving at the local vegetarian restaurant, figuring the steak wasn't an option, then asking for a recommendation for a good steak and then being obliged to follow that recommendation. It is likely not going to be a good result and we know why, vegetarians know nothing about steak!
Or similarly asking a teetotaler for a recommendation to a good off-licence.

Remember, the woman must follow that referral, she will have not a choice on the provider. This proposed system, provides the choice to finish your pregnancy up to 12 weeks, but DENIES the user the choice how to access the system. You take what you are given. Don't like your local doctor, he's your treating and approved to provide the service. Don't like your referral, sorry. Want a female doctor? She wasn't referred to you sorry. "Sorry, Luv, we offered you your choice, don't like it tough." (I'm taking Leo's words in vain)

You take what you are given, be grateful, but actually this is no different to the rest of the healthcare system..

Why don't, Simon and Leo just own up, provide a central referral system, so that if the woman isn't happy, she can contact this and get the care she wants or the nearest available to it. Or is this too difficult? Or is there something else on? and now the woman has become the pawn, instead of providing a simple service.

sabat

WillContribute wrote: »

The current concept of making Conscientious Objectors(CO) refer/recommend patients to other providers puzzles me. (Unless I've missed something today, out of coverage for a good bit)

COs don't want anything to do with abortion. They will not provide it, have decided not to study its methods and will very likely not be attending CPD(Continuous Prof. Development) courses or seminars on it. Likewise they will not be that savy on the local situation vis a vis who's doing it, where is busy, where's open etc.

And now they ARE the people to make referrals/ recommendations to patients that might arrive at their practice, and their patient must follow that referral.

Apologies for the references but this is so bizarre, it needs a little humour.

This is akin to arriving at the local vegetarian restaurant, figuring the steak wasn't an option, then asking for a recommendation for a good steak and then being obliged to follow that recommendation. It is likely not going to be a good result and we know why, vegetarians know nothing about steak!
Or similarly asking a teetotaler for a recommendation to a good off-licence.

Remember, the woman must follow that referral, she will have not a choice on the provider. This proposed system, provides the choice to finish your pregnancy up to 12 weeks, but DENIES the user the choice how to access the system. You take what you are given. Don't like your local doctor, he's your treating and approved to provide the service. Don't like your referral, sorry. Want a female doctor? She wasn't referred to you sorry. "Sorry, Luv, we offered you your choice, don't like it tough." (I'm taking Leo's words in vain)

You take what you are given, be grateful, but actually this is no different to the rest of the healthcare system..

Why don't, Simon and Leo just own up, provide a central referral system, so that if the woman isn't happy, she can contact this and get the care she wants or the nearest available to it. Or is this too difficult? Or is there something else on? and now the woman has become the pawn, instead of providing a simple service.

Could you give me an example of how (aside from the female doctor aspect) a woman could have a preference for one abortionist over another?

Christy42

I am pretty sure a woman always has the right to go to a different gp. They may if required give a fresh referral. Am I wrong in all that?

Second of all the woman could mention to the first go that wish to have a female doctor in this case. If the doctor is spiteful enough to ignore that then the doctor is the issue here.

Honestly this seems like an overly convoluted reason to stop a gp from having to do their job.

ELM327

WillContribute wrote: »

The current concept of making Conscientious Objectors(CO) refer/recommend patients to other providers puzzles me. (Unless I've missed something today, out of coverage for a good bit)

COs don't want anything to do with abortion. They will not provide it, have decided not to study its methods and will very likely not be attending CPD(Continuous Prof. Development) courses or seminars on it. Likewise they will not be that savy on the local situation vis a vis who's doing it, where is busy, where's open etc.

And now they ARE the people to make referrals/ recommendations to patients that might arrive at their practice, and their patient must follow that referral.

Apologies for the references but this is so bizarre, it needs a little humour.

This is akin to arriving at the local vegetarian restaurant, figuring the steak wasn't an option, then asking for a recommendation for a good steak and then being obliged to follow that recommendation. It is likely not going to be a good result and we know why, vegetarians know nothing about steak!
Or similarly asking a teetotaler for a recommendation to a good off-licence.

Remember, the woman must follow that referral, she will have not a choice on the provider. This proposed system, provides the choice to finish your pregnancy up to 12 weeks, but DENIES the user the choice how to access the system. You take what you are given. Don't like your local doctor, he's your treating and approved to provide the service. Don't like your referral, sorry. Want a female doctor? She wasn't referred to you sorry. "Sorry, Luv, we offered you your choice, don't like it tough." (I'm taking Leo's words in vain)

You take what you are given, be grateful, but actually this is no different to the rest of the healthcare system..

Why don't, Simon and Leo just own up, provide a central referral system, so that if the woman isn't happy, she can contact this and get the care she wants or the nearest available to it. Or is this too difficult? Or is there something else on? and now the woman has become the pawn, instead of providing a simple service.

It's actually like arriving to a steak restaurant that doesnt serve striploin steak. And they refuse to refer you to somewhere that does.

Zubeneschamali

ELM327 wrote: »

It's actually like arriving to a steak restaurant that doesnt serve striploin steak. And they refuse to refer you to somewhere that does.

Given that these are doctors we are talking about, it is more like a man showing up with a chest infection and being told by the doctor that this practice doesn't do antibiotics.

Who does?

Not telling.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Of course, that's the whole idea. If enough GPs join this boycott of abortion services, women will find it a total pain to locate a doctor who does provide the service. Then the service will have to be centralized through the HSE.

Then the anti-abortionists will have a central point to picket and protest, driving women away.

Then women will say fúck it and go to England rather than deal with all of this.

Job done for Youth Defence.