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.”
uptherebels wrote: » https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/update-hospitals-have-an-obligation-to-follow-new-abortion-legislation-says-tanaiste-898328.html Interesting part "Coombe spokesperson rejected the Dáil claims last night, saying its board, which has not met since Christmas, had no case role: “In the context of the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 and the latest draft Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Pathway for Management of Fatal Fetal Anomalies, the board of guardians and directors of the Coombe has no role whatsoever in certifying a termination of pregnancy. “Insofar as recent media coverage has stated that the board has had a role in determining whether or not the criteria for certification have been met, those reports are untrue.” However, at the time of going to press, the Coombe had yet to respond to queries on whether another internal medical board as opposed to the hospital board was involved in the case."
“Insofar as recent media coverage has stated that the board has had a role in determining whether or not the criteria for certification have been met, those reports are untrue.”
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Nope. They were comparing a surgical abortion to just letting the woman sit there and eventually miscarry 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.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » They could have accepted that the criteria for certification as FFA were met, but still refused it, and that statement above would be perfectly true. Anyone familiar with the spin coming off the RCC hierarchy whenever a new scandal is exposed will recognise the same very bad smell of mental reservation off this one. The important part of that sentence isn't "those reports are untrue" but "insofar". They are wording it very carefully to imply that the reports are completely untrue when they are only denying one very specific interpretation of the claims which have been made, NOT the claims as a whole.
tigger123 wrote: » God forbid we wait for the two sides of the story before rushing to judgement. Neither you, I, or anyone else has a complete picture of what did or didn't happen. At best this is third hand information from the opposition in the Dail. I'd wait before rushing to judgement.
Call me Al wrote: » So in light of the fact that the patient in question has reportedly travelled to the UK, what is now going to happen with regard to follow up on the process currently in place in the Coombe? Is the HSE going to investigate the circumstances in this case?
gmisk wrote: » This story contains first hand information and quotes from the woman involved.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-refused-abortion-will-travel-to-united-kingdom-1.3762063
tigger123 wrote: » It's an account from the woman herself, then from Ruth Coppinger into the Dail. It's currently unsubstantiated and parts of it are refuted by the Coombe. If the story is as as presented, it's an absolute disgrace, no doubt about it. That poor woman is going through enough and will do without having this added to it. What I'm saying is, wait for the full facts to come out. It seems very incongruous that the Coombe board would overrule 2 consultants and a GP in these circumstances.
retro:electro wrote: » What does she mean by “the bar is too high for certifying fatal abnormalities”.. this would seem one was not certified in her case but we know two doctors did diagnose it as fatal
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » I'm not talking about third hand information in the Dail, but the Coombe's statement. It's full of spin and very carefully worded to imply things it's actually not saying. Why are they doing that? Someone is trying to hide something.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » except they've been obliged to provide abortions under POLDPA when the woman's life is in danger, for only the last FIVE YEARS.
Amirani wrote: » What is shocking though is that it seems the woman in question is having to travel to the UK and can't receive treatment in an Irish hospital that is ready to provide abortions.
Riskymove wrote: » why can't she have an abortion via another health Centre?
ELM327 wrote: » She shouldn't have to?
seamus wrote: » Because there is no process for a woman over 12 weeks to present to any hospital or care centre and request an abortion. She would have to go through at least some of the same process again to have the diagnosis made and confirmed. Which would take several weeks.
seamus wrote: » Because there is no process for a woman over 12 weeks to present to any hospital or care centre and request an abortion. She would have to go through at least some of the same process again to have the diagnosis confirmed and the request approved. Which would take several weeks.
Riskymove wrote: » just reading up there on it. that there is a fatal abnormality so an abortion could be carried out beyond 12 weeks. But it would take a few weeks to establish that in another hospital? But she does not want to wait so is thinking of going to UK? Is that correct?
