Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Loafing Oaf · 14-01-2019 06:27PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and if it doesn't we enact the proposed legislation and start locking them up. Their right to protest does not supersede anybody else's right to medical treatment.

Do you actually think Simon Harris should adopt a wait-and-see approach before introducing exclusion zones? Pro-choice journalist Justine McCarthy makes that argument in this article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/justine-mccarthy-pro-lifers-cant-claim-a-divine-right-to-protest-wk6cnfdv6?t=ie

She says bringing them in pre-emptively would feed the pro-lifers' martyr complex and that any actual blocking of medical facilities could be dealt with using existing laws.

Igotadose · 14-01-2019 06:46PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Do you actually think Simon Harris should adopt a wait-and-see approach before introducing exclusion zones? Pro-choice journalist Justine McCarthy makes that argument in this article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/justine-mccarthy-pro-lifers-cant-claim-a-divine-right-to-protest-wk6cnfdv6?t=ie

She says bringing them in pre-emptively would feed the pro-lifers' martyr complex and that any actual blocking of medical facilities could be dealt with using existing laws.

Lock them up!
Lock them up!

Or, better still, fine them and contribute the fine proceeds to abortion rights groups.

This lot will *always* have a martyr complex. Goes with the territory they claim to represent. Don't appease them they're breaking the law.

amcalester · 14-01-2019 06:51PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Do you actually think Simon Harris should adopt a wait-and-see approach before introducing exclusion zones? Pro-choice journalist Justine McCarthy makes that argument in this article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/justine-mccarthy-pro-lifers-cant-claim-a-divine-right-to-protest-wk6cnfdv6?t=ie

She says bringing them in pre-emptively would feed the pro-lifers' martyr complex and that any actual blocking of medical facilities could be dealt with using existing laws.

Here’s the thing, it only affects them if they were planning on protesting.

And if they were planning on protesting then the exclusion zones are required so, by protesting the implementation of exclusion zones they are demonstrating that they are in fact needed.

gctest50 · 14-01-2019 07:42PM

Another reason why they are protesting :

Often when abortion is legalised, the overall rate goes down

1.) They are panicking in case this happens here ( over ... say 3 years etc)

2.) If the rate does go down, they'll claim it was their protesting that caused the reduction

15-01-2019 12:10AM

SusieBlue wrote: »

I wonder what the reaction would be if Pro Choice protesters picketed the clinics of doctors not offering abortions services.
I wonder would the right to protest be defended as vehemently as it currently is, or would there be a bit of hypocrisy and double standards in the responses.

Wondering what will happen when they annoy the wrong person who just got bad news from their doctor or suspects that their about to. Quite easy for someone in that situation to snap.
It's not the protester being injured that I would be worried about but the patient getting into trouble with the law.

thee glitz · 15-01-2019 01:25AM

uptherebels wrote: »

You already know the answer to this.

As far as I know, abortions are available after 12 weeks where required, but it's supposedly not possible to allow only those cases before that time?

LorelaiG · 15-01-2019 08:17AM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Then the woman seeking an abortion just nips off to the clinic a mile away where there are no protests. Trying to seriously disrupt the abortion service through these sorts of protests is like playing whack-a-mole with one flimsy hammer and thousands of moles popping up all over the place. I'm sure this will soon become apparent to the handful who have been protesting so far and they'll give up the ghost.

Not as easy as that as some doctors are only providing services to patients who are already patients in that practice.

uptherebels · 15-01-2019 08:25AM

thee glitz wrote: »

As far as I know, abortions are available after 12 weeks where required, but it's supposedly not possible to allow only those cases before that time?

The main one being for women who have been raped/abused.
Also to try and prevent women being forced to take pills they have ordered from the internet.
Like others on here who take issue with the 12 weeks but can't come up with an alternative, these issues need solutions.

facehugger99 · 15-01-2019 08:50AM

It's tough on the anti-abortion heads.

Country's moved on without them.

No amount of protesting will change it.

We're just witnessing an ugly little tantrum from sad people who can't accept they no longer have the right to impose their religious dogma on others - like most tantrums, it won't last very long.

15-01-2019 02:35PM

facehugger99 wrote: »

It's tough on the anti-abortion heads.

Country's moved on without them.

No amount of protesting will change it.

We're just witnessing an ugly little tantrum from sad people who can't accept they no longer have the right to impose their religious dogma on others - like most tantrums, it won't last very long.

Religious belief isn't a motive for some, especially some of the posters here.

While posts on here might dry up, actual protesters at GPs and hospitals will most likely continue.

The older of us here remember the reason youth defense and other US supported groups stopped protesting and intimidating customers of the IFPA clinics was through court order. Same will most likely be required for this situation based on intimidation and/or disruption of patients and staff of the GP/hospitals.

Loafing Oaf · 15-01-2019 05:24PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

Religious belief isn't a motive for some, especially some of the posters here.

While posts on here might dry up, actual protesters at GPs and hospitals will most likely continue..

This seems far from certain to me. After all, the protests so far have been pretty sporadic and half-hearted, with no sense of them gaining momentum. In that article, Justine McCarthy observes that the Drogheda protestors dispersed soon after their photos were taken by the media, and many at the hospital were not even aware of their presence.

I just wonder if you introduced exclusion zones, would that give potential protestors something to butt against. There is apparently no appetite among Irish pro-lifers for the kind of loud, in your face protests we see at American abortion clinics. But if you introduced exclusion zones, you might get people testing their limits, goading the Gardai to arrest them and make them 'martyrs for the cause'...

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 15-01-2019 05:40PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

Wondering what will happen when they annoy the wrong person who just got bad news from their doctor or suspects that their about to. Quite easy for someone in that situation to snap.
It's not the protester being injured that I would be worried about but the patient getting into trouble with the law.

And you just know it’d be the patient getting charged with assault there. :mad: Having been on the receiving end of a very serious diagnosis twice in my life, the idea of having to run a gauntlet of protesters afterwards is upsetting.

15-01-2019 05:56PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

This seems far from certain to me. After all, the protests so far have been pretty sporadic and half-hearted, with no sense of them gaining momentum. In that article, Justine McCarthy observes that the Drogheda protestors dispersed soon after their photos were taken by the media, and many at the hospital were not even aware of their presence.

I just wonder if you introduced exclusion zones, would that give potential protestors something to butt against. There is apparently no appetite among Irish pro-lifers for the kind of loud, in your face protests we see at American abortion clinics. But if you introduced exclusion zones, you might get people testing their limits, goading the Gardai to arrest them and make them 'martyrs for the cause'...

Hospitals and surgeries are already something to butt against.
Being arrested especially if its reported can work a number of ways, martyrs for those like them, for others a reminder that the headaches still exist and are quite happy to break the law when it suits them making them harder to defend. It could also have the affect of discouraging some protesters from actually attending.

It was the same with the case against youth defense re the IFPA, most members apart from the hard core don't want an arrest/conviction to affect their employment opportunities etc.

Loafing Oaf · 15-01-2019 10:41PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

Hospitals and surgeries are already something to butt against.

But they're only butting in a flimsy and half-hearted way as things stand...Anyway I just thought it was worth throwing the idea out there.

Simon Harris is the one making the decision, and I suspect if the protests have petered out completely by the time the exclusion zone legislation is scheduled to be introduced, he may decide it's not needed after all...

LorelaiG · 17-01-2019 02:16PM

A woman who is 14 weeks pregnant has been denied an abortion on the grounds of an FFA (certified by two consultants) in the Coombe hospital by the board there. They want to wait and see if she miscarries first.

This is not what we voted for.

gmisk · 17-01-2019 02:19PM

LorelaiG wrote: »

A woman who is 14 weeks pregnant has been denied an abortion on the grounds of an FFA (certified by two consultants) in the Coombe hospital by the board there. They want to wait and see if she miscarries first.

This is not what we voted for.

Wow that is pretty heartbreaking, that poor woman.

Christy42 · 17-01-2019 02:30PM

LorelaiG wrote: »

A woman who is 14 weeks pregnant has been denied an abortion on the grounds of an FFA (certified by two consultants) in the Coombe hospital by the board there. They want to wait and see if she miscarries first.

This is not what we voted for.

Link? Was there a medical reason for it?

ELM327 · 17-01-2019 02:33PM

That's terrible. There should be an inquiry and any medical professional(s) found to be obfuscating her right to a termination be removed from their post(s)

LorelaiG · 17-01-2019 02:34PM

Christy42 wrote: »

Link? Was there a medical reason for it?

The fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality and will not survive outside the womb.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/0117/1023832-dail-abortion/

Christy42 · 17-01-2019 02:38PM

LorelaiG wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Link? Was there a medical reason for it?

The fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality and will not survive outside the womb.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2019/0117/1023832-dail-abortion/

I more meant that I was wondering if there was a medical reason not to perform the abortion as opposed to the FFA piece (as in it would cause a great risk to the woman's life to perform it).

Given they seem happy to perform it in 4 weeks and I am guessing these things don't get easier over time that does not appear to be the case. I had assumed she was just being made wait till Tuesday or something.

Ridiculous. It needs to be made clear that the law has changed and that women have rights in this area now.

amcalester · 17-01-2019 02:39PM

The more things change the more they stay the same.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-01-2019 02:46PM

Yea I was wondering too what the reason for the deferral actually is. It is not clear from the news paper link above.

It does appear from a first read that she is being denied the rights we all just voted to give her. But even the best law has to have exceptions and I think I will withhold judgement until it is reported what grounds they refused the abortion on. There MIGHT actually be a very good reason for it that I do not know of yet.

Anyone with more info? Would be much appreciated!

Amirani · 17-01-2019 02:48PM

14 year prison sentences for medical practitioners who perform abortions outside of the strict legal limits is going to have consequences. If I was a doctor and there was any ambiguity past the 12 weeks then I'd be hesitant.

In this case it seems to be the case that the FFA has been confirmed, but we're not privy to exact details at this point.

gmisk · 17-01-2019 02:57PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yea I was wondering too what the reason for the deferral actually is. It is not clear from the news paper link above.

It does appear from a first read that she is being denied the rights we all just voted to give her. But even the best law has to have exceptions and I think I will withhold judgement until it is reported what grounds they refused the abortion on. There MIGHT actually be a very good reason for it that I do not know of yet.

Anyone with more info? Would be much appreciated!

Genuinely what do you think the reason could possibly be for a board of hospital to deny an abortion?
The indication from Ruth Coppinger is that they believe she will naturally miscarry in the coming weeks and that would mean they dont have to sign of on a FFA termination.

2 consultants confirmed FFA.
Forcing this woman to wait 4 weeks when it is likely she will miscarry is absolutely barbaric.

amcalester · 17-01-2019 03:00PM

gmisk wrote: »

Genuinely what do you think the reason could possibly be for a board of hospital to deny an abortion?
2 consultants confirmed FFA.
Forcing this woman to wait 4 weeks when it is likely she will miscarry is absolutely barbaric.

The only thing I can think of is that the procedure causes undue risk to the mother’s health but that seems unlikely given their wait and see attitude.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-01-2019 03:08PM

gmisk wrote: »

Genuinely what do you think the reason could possibly be for a board of hospital to deny an abortion?

As I said I have literally no idea! That is why they are paid medical professionals and I am not

All I can do is withhold my judgement until such time as I know the full story. Perhaps she has been identified as a high risk example in relation to the required procedure or drugs, and hence the procedure is deemed high risk in her case (edit: amcalester beat me to essentially that idea).

I am simply playing the ignorance card on this one until more details are in. Like the good skeptic waiting for the data

But for sure 100 agree that....

gmisk wrote: »

The indication from Ruth Coppinger is that they believe she will naturally miscarry in the coming weeks

.... if they are refusing it on the grounds it might happen by itself in time only.... so why bother doing it manually......... that is an absolutely awful reason for it.

I see no argument at all for not removing something now that might die, go septic, or worse as time goes by and it dies by itself. And as we know the later any abortion is performed, the greater the proportional risks of complications. Even with medical abortion rather than surgical. And on top of that the emotional turmoil of having an unplanned abortion if likely to increase in proportion to the length of the pregnancy too.

So I hope whatever the reason is, if any, it is a damn sight better than a lazy "wait and see". But I respect the medical community enough to at least give them a chance to lay out their justification BEFORE hanging them for it

gmisk · 17-01-2019 03:26PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said I have literally no idea! That is why they are paid medical professionals and I am not All I can do is withhold my judgement until such time as I know the full story. Perhaps she has been identified as a high risk example in relation to the required procedure or drugs, and hence the procedure is deemed high risk in her case (edit: amcalester beat me to essentially that idea).

I am simply playing the ignorance card on this one until more details are in. Like the good skeptic waiting for the data

But for sure 100 agree that....

.... if they are refusing it on the grounds it might happen by itself in time only.... so why bother doing it manually......... that is an absolutely awful reason for it.

I see no argument at all for not removing something now that might die, go septic, or worse as time goes by and it dies by itself. And as we know the later any abortion is performed, the greater the proportional risks of complications. Even with medical abortion rather than surgical. And on top of that the emotional turmoil of having an unplanned abortion if likely to increase in proportion to the length of the pregnancy too.

So I hope whatever the reason is, if any, it is a damn sight better than a lazy "wait and see". But I respect the medical community enough to at least give them a chance to lay out their justification BEFORE hanging them for it

I understand what you are saying and agree for the most part.
But in this instance 2 consultants confirmed FFA....it is a hospital board that refused an abortion....not the "medical community".
But you are right lets see what they have to say, but I am finding it hard to fathom a reason.

nozzferrahhtoo · 17-01-2019 03:40PM

gmisk wrote: »

But you are right lets see what they have to say, but I am finding it hard to fathom a reason.

Me too but I have been bitten by this in the past when I jumped too soon. I screeched wildly about someone being denied a procedure (nothing to do with abortion) and how awful it was.

Then I read the actual medical opinion. The procedure in question required a specific drug and surgery. The patient in question had thin blood and blood clotting issues. So the procedure for that patient was SPECIFICALLY identified as an unwarranted risk and another option was deemed best in their specific scenario. The specific drug was warned off against thin blood issues. Surgery is bad when there is blood clotting issues. It was basically the right medical call.

So I just had to deflate and go "oh yes.... quite....I didn't realize.... LOOK OVER THERE A 20 FOOT WOMAN!" *sounds of scarpering*

It was purely my medical ignorance that had me jump too fast and left me red faced. So I am more cautious with my "wait and see" attitude here. But I admit, like you, I have a low expectation that their reasoning.... if any even.... here is going to be good.

LorelaiG · 17-01-2019 03:42PM

The Coombe are not ready for abortions apparently, if this is the case the woman should have been referred to the Rotunda or to the NMH who are ready. She hasn't, she has been told her options are to wait it out and see if she miscarries or go to the UK. This is wrong.

ohnonotgmail · 17-01-2019 03:44PM

What i am trying to understand is why it went before the board at all. It should be a medical decision. The board of the coombe is not entirely comprised of medical personnel.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments