Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Hotblack Desiato · 17-01-2019 08:13PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I love that posters here believe Ruth coppinger who can say what she likes due to dail privilege. The board intervened allegedly so that means that the director of nursing on down including any CNMs and line managers above the two people who confirmed the organs outside the were skipped over then ? I find that very very hard to believe.

Nursing???? Clearly you don't have a breeze.

Itssoeasy · 17-01-2019 08:15PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Nursing???? Clearly you don't have a breeze.

Please enlighten me what I've wrong ?

ohnonotgmail · 17-01-2019 08:15PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I love that posters here believe Ruth coppinger who can say what she likes due to dail privilege. The board intervened allegedly so that means that the director of nursing on down including any CNMs and line managers above the two people who confirmed the organs outside the were skipped over then ? I find that very very hard to believe.

The diagnosis would have been confirmed by a doctor. They dont answer to nurses.

keano_afc · 17-01-2019 08:18PM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Are you a qualified obstetrician?

A question you could ask to 90% of the contributors to this thread.

Itssoeasy · 17-01-2019 08:19PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The diagnosis would have been confirmed by a doctor. They dont answer to nurses.

I know that. Where did I say they answered to nurses ? I said manangers and I'll correct myself and it is probably the master of the hospital not the director of nursing given it's a maternity hospital.

LorelaiG · 17-01-2019 08:20PM

Annabella1 wrote: »

We don’t know all the facts here
What about a scenario where a woman has very serious FFA and she is likely to miscarry within a few weeks anyway
A surgical abortion carries greater risks and it may not be clinically necessary
She appears to have been told to wait a few weeks ( not 100%)
Medicine is not black and white

A surgical abortion does not carry greater risk and a woman should not be forced to carry a fetus who will not survive outside of the womb for a few more weeks in case she miscarries anyway, if she no longer wants to be pregnant then it is her right to request a termination and she should not be fobbed off once doctors certify that it is indeed an FFA.

It seems there were some crossed wires somewhere though, I'm hoping she gets the care she needs.

BBFAN · 17-01-2019 09:17PM

https://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-fatal-foetal-4445349-Jan2019/

What do people think of this story?

I don't know if it's true or not because I spoke to someone today whose friend had an abortion in Dublin recently because of fatal foetal abnormality but I didn't ask him what hospital but he did say it was the fourth one apparently.

The Coombe do confirm that they haven't carried an abortion yet so maybe this story is true.

I can't imagine that anyone would get away with making this story up?

NIMAN · 17-01-2019 09:19PM

... and so it begins.

Was always going to be a mess.

James Brown · 17-01-2019 09:21PM

It's true. The details are she was refused on the basis of it not meeting the criteria for abortion in the Coombe's opinion and they wanted to give it a few more weeks to see how it goes. There will be more of this.

super_furry · 17-01-2019 09:21PM

How many people from relgious orders are on their board?

Odhinn · 17-01-2019 09:23PM

BBFAN wrote: »

https://www.thejournal.ie/abortion-fatal-foetal-4445349-Jan2019/

What do people think of this story?

I don't know if it's true or not because I spoke to someone today whose friend had an abortion in Dublin recently because of fatal foetal abnormality but I didn't ask him what hospital but he did say it was the fourth one apparently.

The Coombe do confirm that they haven't carried an abortion yet so maybe this story is true.

I can't imagine that anyone would get away with making this story up?

The board say they don't make individual clinical decisions, so its as of now unclear wtf went on.

mvl · 17-01-2019 09:47PM

I find how this is handled here IS awful (process wise) and not safe.

- on the continent where I am originally from they are faster to act, it is really by choice; since it is done surgically, a gynecologist would be handling it, with support from the anesthesiologist/nurse
- to my knowledge they are not using abortion pills back there at all (and can't the pill cause partial abortions + infection ?!? - I would defo not feel safe taking one)

BBFAN · 17-01-2019 09:57PM

super_furry wrote: »

How many people from relgious orders are on their board?

That's what I was wondering?

I presume that my friend's friend was done in the Rotunda or Holles Street, unsure whether to ask him or not. Probably not any of my business.

whisky_galore · 17-01-2019 10:00PM

NIMAN wrote: »

... and so it begins.

Was always going to be a mess.

As is anything involving the HSE, it'll be the first of many more messes.

Alrigghtythen · 17-01-2019 10:00PM

*throws out cake ðŸŽ‚

BBFAN · 17-01-2019 10:00PM

mvl wrote: »

I find how this is handled here IS awful (process wise) and not safe.

- on the continent where I am originally from they are faster to act, it is really by choice; since it is done surgically, a gynecologist would be handling it, with support from the anesthesiologist/nurse
- to my knowledge they are not using abortion pills back there at all (and can't the pill cause partial abortions + infection ?!? - I would defo not feel safe taking one)

The pill is perfectly safe as long as you're completely sure about your dates.

I know of a number of women who've successfully used the pill.

It's when it comes close to the 12 week mark that surgical is safer.

pleas advice · 17-01-2019 10:15PM

just fyi from the article, wasn't sure what the law was exactly myself

The law states:
“A termination of pregnancy may be carried out in accordance with this section where 2 medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, are of the reasonable opinion formed in good faith that there is present a condition affecting the foetus that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before, or within 28 days of, birth.”

Amirani · 17-01-2019 10:18PM

The Coombe stated a couple of weeks ago that they're not currently ready to provide abortions, and they're not listed as 1 that provides them. I assume this is why this has come up. I'm not sure why there hasn't been a referral to another hospital though.

BBFAN · 17-01-2019 10:20PM

pleas advice wrote: »

just fyi from the article, wasn't sure what the law was exactly myself

The law states:
“A termination of pregnancy may be carried out in accordance with this section where 2 medical practitioners, having examined the pregnant woman, are of the reasonable opinion formed in good faith that there is present a condition affecting the foetus that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before, or within 28 days of, birth.”

I read the article, don't know exactly what your point is?

pleas advice · 17-01-2019 10:22PM

for anyone too lazy to click it and read, like me usually

tretorn · 17-01-2019 10:26PM

The point is medical practitioners are the people charged with the duty of deciding whether a defect is fatal or not.

Ruth Coppinger and her sidekick can screech all they like in the Dail but if two medical consultants decide that a defect isnt fatal then the person carrying the baby isnt entitled to an abortion in this jurisdiction. She may have to claim she is suicidal because of the pregnancy and there is provision for termination under this clause but this is an additional provision and different to the requirement that two professionals must certify a fatal defect.

Are we going to have screeching in the Dail everytime medical practitioners insist on acting according to their ethics and within the Law.

Jesus wept, why dont we just dispense with all protection for the unborn while we are at it.

Skylinehead · 17-01-2019 10:28PM

Merged into main thread.

Call me Al · 18-01-2019 01:15AM

Amirani wrote: »

The Coombe stated a couple of weeks ago that they're not currently ready to provide abortions, and they're not listed as 1 that provides them. I assume this is why this has come up. I'm not sure why there hasn't been a referral to another hospital though.

I read elsewhere (this may or may not be true) that in situations like this other maternity hospitals won't accept referrals. This is to circumvent maternity hospitals or clinics trying to avoid difficult decisions (such as this), leading to a situation where all abortions are carried out in a few medical centres because these other hospital's patients are being fobbed off on them.

Call me Al · 18-01-2019 01:19AM

tretorn wrote: »

The point is medical practitioners are the people charged with the duty of deciding whether a defect is fatal or not.

Ruth Coppinger and her sidekick can screech all they like in the Dail but if two medical consultants decide that a defect isnt fatal then the person carrying the baby isnt entitled to an abortion in this jurisdiction. She may have to claim she is suicidal because of the pregnancy and there is provision for termination under this clause but this is an additional provision and different to the requirement that two professionals must certify a fatal defect.

Are we going to have screeching in the Dail everytime medical practitioners insist on acting according to their ethics and within the Law.

Jesus wept, why dont we just dispense with all protection for the unborn while we are at it.

Two medical professionals have confirmed that this fetus has a FFA. This woman has not mentioned suicide so i wonder why you feel it's relevant in her case.
You clearly missed these important points in your concern about Ruth Coppinger's vocal pitch.

Hotblack Desiato · 18-01-2019 01:32AM

Amirani wrote: »

The Coombe stated a couple of weeks ago that they're not currently ready to provide abortions

except they've been obliged to provide abortions under POLDPA when the woman's life is in danger, for only the last FIVE YEARS.

Hotblack Desiato · 18-01-2019 01:33AM

tretorn wrote: »

The point is medical practitioners are the people charged with the duty of deciding whether a defect is fatal or not.

Yes, and two of them did, but for some reason we're still not quite sure of the hospital has blocked it.

Jesus wept, why dont we just dispense with all protection for the unborn while we are at it.

Good idea. It should always be a clinical decision for a doctor, not one made with the prospect of 14 years in prison if they get their dates slightly wrong.

Hotblack Desiato · 18-01-2019 01:34AM

keano_afc wrote: »

A question you could ask to 90% of the contributors to this thread.

No, because they're not making claims of medical expertise like this:

Annabella1 wrote: »

A surgical abortion carries greater risks and it may not be clinically necessary

This person doesn't know what they're talking about, they have no basis to say what is or isn't necessary or what is a greater or lesser risk because they have no medical training and no knowledge of the circumstances of the woman concerned (worse than that, they seem to be generalising their ludicrous claim to extend to ALL cases of FFA.)

ohnonotgmail · 18-01-2019 10:02AM

tretorn wrote: »

The point is medical practitioners are the people charged with the duty of deciding whether a defect is fatal or not.

Ruth Coppinger and her sidekick can screech all they like in the Dail but if two medical consultants decide that a defect isnt fatal then the person carrying the baby isnt entitled to an abortion in this jurisdiction. She may have to claim she is suicidal because of the pregnancy and there is provision for termination under this clause but this is an additional provision and different to the requirement that two professionals must certify a fatal defect.

Are we going to have screeching in the Dail everytime medical practitioners insist on acting according to their ethics and within the Law.

Jesus wept, why dont we just dispense with all protection for the unborn while we are at it.

Except two medical practitioners did decide that the fetus had a FFA.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 18-01-2019 10:16AM

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No, because they're not making claims of medical expertise like this:

This person doesn't know what they're talking about, they have no basis to say what is or isn't necessary or what is a greater or lesser risk because they have no medical training and no knowledge of the circumstances of the woman concerned (worse than that, they seem to be generalising their ludicrous claim to extend to ALL cases of FFA.)

I believe the point being made there is that a surgical abortion entails greater risks than a medical abortion. Which it does. No I'm not an obstetrician but I'm pretty happy standing over that statement.

The woman's claim that she got a call from a nurse on behalf of the board and the hospital's statement that the board would have no involvement don't chime. Her needs have to taken care of as the first priority but it has to be found out what happened here.

Hotblack Desiato · 18-01-2019 11:17AM

Elisabeth Wrong Stork wrote: »

I believe the point being made there is that a surgical abortion entails greater risks than a medical abortion.

Nope. They were comparing a surgical abortion to just letting the woman sit there and eventually miscarry

What about a scenario where a woman has very serious FFA and she is likely to miscarry within a few weeks anyway
A surgical abortion carries greater risks and it may not be clinically necessary

They are claiming to know better than the two obstetricians directly involved in the case. It's amazing the expertise that randomers on the internet have these days... and so what IF a surgical abortion carries a slightly greater risk over and above waiting for a miscarriage? It's still the woman's choice to make and it's the job of the medical professionals to ensure she's fully informed in making that choice.

Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

Comments