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; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

“The Coombe Hospital has said that claims that its Board had a role in determining, whether or not the criteria for certification had been met for a termination of pregnancy in a case, are untrue.“ From RTE. Are you saying this is a lie? The efforts to blame a priest for this is admirable. Eventually you will have to find someone else to blame hotblack. You should start looking around at least......

You didn't comprehend my post - try reading it again.

Clue: there is a board of governors in the Coombe, but there may well be other board(s) such as medical ethics who may well have blocked it. Of course they failed to clarify or deny this, because it was not the literal question they were asked.

The events involving Kevin Doran in the Mater did happen and are a matter of historical record, medical ethics was equated with RC dogma to the detriment of patients. We don't know, but who can say for sure that something like that hasn't happened agian this time.

Hotblack Desiato

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Harris shouldn't have made commitments he couldn't keep. Announce it's live when everything is in place and everyone is happy. It's not a sweet shop he was opening the doors to.

Everyone will never be happy, there are plenty in the medical profession who want to obstruct this. In the meantime we should just keep throwing women under the bus like we did for the last 35 years, is that it?

aloyisious

I note that the Coombe statement on MSN reads as follows: In a statement, the hospital said that while it did not comment on individual cases, it insisted its board "has had no role in determining whether or not the criteria for certification have been met. Those reports are untrue.". The Coombe insisted its board had no involvement in determining whether the criteria for an abortion had been met.

That is slightly different from saying that the hospital board had NOT refused to allow an FFA abortion proceed, [the claim the two TD's stated in the Dáil that the woman had made to them] which is different from determining the criteria for certification for an abortion.

In the event, it seems from today's news reports the woman went to the UK to have the abortion.

volchitsa

seamus wrote: »

So, the board weren't involved at all.

Which meant it was the two consultants who weren't satisfied that it was appropriate to carry out the procedure, which means that they didn't certify there was a FFA.

It's clear that the TDs have jumped the gun quite badly here. They should have brought it to the Minister for Health privately first for him to look into the matter rather than getting worked up about the wrong information.

Well it could mean that. I wouldn't be nearly so sure it does mean that though. Wouldn't be the first time that hospitals involved in providing "religious" medicine got their preferred version of events into the media very speedily, presumably through their contacts there. I remember a couple of leaked reports that were at significant variance from the later published report or from the victims' version. And guess whose was closer to the truth?

I'm not sure about the wisdom of bringing it up privately either. Time matters to this woman.

Also, while we don't know enough yet to be sure, if it is a deliberate delaying tactic by anti choice elements in the hospital, then it's important to deal with it openly to make sure others don't think they can get away with a similar tactic.

volchitsa

aloyisious wrote: »

I note that the Coombe statement on MSN reads as follows: In a statement, the hospital said that while it did not comment on individual cases, it insisted its board "has had no role in determining whether or not the criteria for certification have been met. Those reports are untrue.". The Coombe insisted its board had no involvement in determining whether the criteria for an abortion had been met.

That is slightly different from saying that the hospital board had NOT refused to allow an FFA abortion proceed, [the claim the two TD's stated in the Dáil that the woman had made to them] which is different from determining the criteria for certification for an abortion.

Yes, that could actually mean they accept that she fulfilled the criteria but that for (reasons) they wanted her to wait 4 weeks first, in case miscarriage occurred naturally.

And we all know what those reasons are likely to be.

In the event, it seems from today's news reports the woman went to the UK to have the abortion.

I may have missed something but I thought she was planning to do so but hasn't yet? Hence, perhaps, Coppinger's intervention, because if it isn't resolved quickly then whatever the final decision of any investigation, it will all be too late to be of any practical use to this woman?

aloyisious

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, that could actually mean they accept that she fulfilled the criteria but that for (reasons) they wanted her to wait 4 weeks first, in case miscarriage occurred naturally.

And we all know what those reasons are likely to be.

I may have missed something but I thought she was planning to do so but hasn't yet? Hence, perhaps, Coppinger's intervention, because if it isn't resolved quickly then whatever the final decision of any investigation, it will all be too late to be of any practical use to this woman?

Yes, you're right. The Irish Examiner confirms it as a future move. The woman at the centre of claims a leading maternity hospital blocked her from terminating her pregnancy after a fatal foetal abnormality was detected has said she will be forced to travel to England for an abortion. Sources close to the woman confirmed her plans half a year after the historic vote to remove the Eighth Amendment from the Constitution, and as the National Women’s Council of Ireland demanded “complete clarity” over what happened. https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/woman-forced-to-travel-to-uk-for-abortion-claims-she-was-denied-termination-898328.html

seamus

volchitsa wrote: »

And we all know what those reasons are likely to be.

I think you're jumping the gun to be fair.

What we know from AH is that the woman was 13 weeks pregnant at the time and the foetus diagnosed with Omphalocele.

Taking data from a high level, this is not necessarily fatal, sometimes not even life-limiting. But on an individual level, the prognosis for a foetus with multiple comorbidities is very poor.

It's most likely the case that the doctors involved weren't happy that the foetus was sufficiently developed at 13 weeks to make a legal determination of FFA (even if they were medically almost certain) and advised waiting until 17/18 weeks when it would be 100% clear.

It's an indicator that the law is still too restrictive. Realistically unless it is 100% up to the woman, cases like this will continue emerging. There is no reason why, upon hearing the news and getting medical opinions, the decision to terminate should not rest in the woman's hands.

amcalester

seamus wrote: »

I think you're jumping the gun to be fair.

What we know from AH is that the woman was 13 weeks pregnant at the time and the foetus diagnosed with Omphalocele.

Taking data from a high level, this is not necessarily fatal, sometimes not even life-limiting. But on an individual level, the prognosis for a foetus with multiple comorbidities is very poor.

It's most likely the case that the doctors involved weren't happy that the foetus was sufficiently developed at 13 weeks to make a legal determination of FFA (even if they were medically almost certain) and advised waiting until 17/18 weeks when it would be 100% clear.

It's an indicator that the law is still too restrictive. Realistically unless it is 100% up to the woman, cases like this will continue emerging. There is no reason why, upon hearing the news and getting medical opinions, the decision to terminate should not rest in the woman's hands.

I heard on the radio that there was a 12 week scan where the issue was discovered, and then a second scan completed 1 week later at which point the 2 consultants diagnosed a FFA.

[Deleted User]

aloyisious wrote: »

I note that the Coombe statement on MSN reads as follows: In a statement, the hospital said that while it did not comment on individual cases, it insisted its board "has had no role in determining whether or not the criteria for certification have been met. Those reports are untrue.". The Coombe insisted its board had no involvement in determining whether the criteria for an abortion had been met.

That is slightly different from saying that the hospital board had NOT refused to allow an FFA abortion proceed, [the claim the two TD's stated in the Dáil that the woman had made to them] which is different from determining the criteria for certification for an abortion.

In the event, it seems from today's news reports the woman went to the UK to have the abortion.

Why didn’t she just go to a hospital that was able to provide the service? The Coombe isn’t ready yet. Holles Street and The Rotunda are.

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

I think you're jumping the gun to be fair.

What we know from AH is that the woman was 13 weeks pregnant at the time and the foetus diagnosed with Omphalocele.

Taking data from a high level, this is not necessarily fatal, sometimes not even life-limiting. But on an individual level, the prognosis for a foetus with multiple comorbidities is very poor.

It's most likely the case that the doctors involved weren't happy that the foetus was sufficiently developed at 13 weeks to make a legal determination of FFA (even if they were medically almost certain) and advised waiting until 17/18 weeks when it would be 100% clear.

It's an indicator that the law is still too restrictive. Realistically unless it is 100% up to the woman, cases like this will continue emerging. There is no reason why, upon hearing the news and getting medical opinions, the decision to terminate should not rest in the woman's hands.

You are basing this on absolutely nothing.

seamus

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You are basing this on absolutely nothing.

It's supposition sure, but similarly any claim that there has been religious or pro-life interference is also based on absolutely nothing.

Occam's razor. The above assumes that the doctor(s) involved are pro-life or religious.

Mine assumes they're human.

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

It's supposition sure, but similarly any claim that there has been religious or pro-life interference is also based on absolutely nothing.

Occam's razor. The above assumes that the doctor(s) involved are pro-life or religious.

Mine assumes they're human.

you have gone way beyond supposition when you say that your outcome is the most likely.

Igotadose

seamus wrote: »

It's supposition sure, but similarly any claim that there has been religious or pro-life interference is also based on absolutely nothing.

Occam's razor. The above assumes that the doctor(s) involved are pro-life or religious.

Mine assumes they're human.

Or, they've been rewarded by the structure they work in (HSE, Coombe hospital) to be anti-abortion, religious affiliation or not. I'm actually agreeing with you, they're human and as subject to influence as others.

And, we don't know which doctors we're talking about - whatever 'board' told the woman she should wait 4 weeks? As was reported in an article the woman heard this from the midwife - reporters should be asking the midwife which board told her.

What's missing (this being the HSE where accountability is nonexistant as far as I can tell), is that if a cut-and-dried case like this woman's comes up and for some reason the doctor(s) fail to provide the prescribed procedure, there are consequences for them. Reduction in pay, suspension, ... Unfortunately it seems in Ireland a doctor has to kill someone before there's even a slight chance anything will happen - are Savita's physicians still licensed? Emma McMathuna's? If so, why? How many mistakes have they made that were damaging but not fatal? HSE probably doesn't even track.

Someone should say to the newspapers that this hospital is incapable of performing a simple gynaecological procedure done widely for many years at many hospitals (probably even Coombe.) Coombe's refusal is just inexplicable.
Fair play to the woman in question and the TD's for bringing this forward, more light on HSE malfeasance is what's needed.

Sadly, though, not unexpected. HSE should be detonated and replace.

martingriff

Deleted User wrote: »

Why didn’t she just go to a hospital that was able to provide the service? The Coombe isn’t ready yet. Holles Street and The Rotunda are.

I was coming on to ask this very question. Maybe she made the decision very quickly not thinking of the other hospitals but surely the 2 TD's or other would advise her to go to the others

seamus

martingriff wrote: »

I was coming on to ask this very question. Maybe she made the decision very quickly not thinking of the other hospitals but surely the 2 TD's or other would advise her to go to the others

The red tape involved, probably. Before the consultants in the other hospital will even talk to her, she'd have to get everything transferred across, and then (from her POV) she runs the risk of being told "No" there too.

It wouldn't be as simple as ringing a consultant's secretary and asking if s/he carries out abortions.

Mainly because there is no concept of an "on demand" abortion in the new legislation.

martingriff

seamus wrote: »

The red tape involved, probably. Before the consultants in the other hospital will even talk to her, she'd have to get everything transferred across, and then (from her POV) she runs the risk of being told "No" there too.

It wouldn't be as simple as ringing a consultant's secretary and asking if s/he carries out abortions.

Mainly because there is no concept of an "on demand" abortion in the new legislation.

Will I would think that if she had the 2 letters the others would accomodate her especially as they are both prepared so I thought there be no red tape and with 2 TD's behind you it would vanish very quickly. I do agree with you sentence that she probably taught if 1 said no the rest would also.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

I note that the Coombe statement on MSN reads as follows: In a statement, the hospital said that while it did not comment on individual cases, it insisted its board "has had no role in determining whether or not the criteria for certification have been met. Those reports are untrue.". The Coombe insisted its board had no involvement in determining whether the criteria for an abortion had been met.

That is slightly different from saying that the hospital board had NOT refused to allow an FFA abortion proceed, [the claim the two TD's stated in the D that the woman had made to them] which is different from determining the criteria for certification for an abortion.

Mental reservation in action.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Mental reservation in action.

or perhapse just the truth. won't suit some but shur look, nothing can be done about that.

amcalester

end of the road wrote: »

or perhapse just the truth. won't stuit some but shur look, nothing can be done about that.

Curios to hear what you think about this. Do you think this woman should be allowed have an abortion?

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

or perhapse just the truth. won't stuit some but shur look, nothing can be done about that.

"We've tried everything! We've tried lying. We've tried being sexist. We've tried ignoring difficult questions. Nothing works. They just won't accept our arguments!"

tretorn

seamus wrote: »

I think you're jumping the gun to be fair.

What we know from AH is that the woman was 13 weeks pregnant at the time and the foetus diagnosed with Omphalocele.

Taking data from a high level, this is not necessarily fatal, sometimes not even life-limiting. But on an individual level, the prognosis for a foetus with multiple comorbidities is very poor.

It's most likely the case that the doctors involved weren't happy that the foetus was sufficiently developed at 13 weeks to make a legal determination of FFA (even if they were medically almost certain) and advised waiting until 17/18 weeks when it would be 100% clear.

It's an indicator that the law is still too restrictive. Realistically unless it is 100% up to the woman, cases like this will continue emerging. There is no reason why, upon hearing the news and getting medical opinions, the decision to terminate should not rest in the woman's hands.

Well, the decision resting in the womans hands is not what the electorate voted so, this is very inconvenient for those people wanting a very liberal abortion regime but Irish people were told abortion would only be available after twelve weeks in certain specific circumstances, ie in cases where FFA is diagnosed and confirmed in the opinion of two medical professionals and on mental health grounds where continuing with a pregnancy could cause a woman to be suicidal.

I know two young adults who were diagnosed with having organs outside their bodies. Parents were advised to go to the Uk for abortions but refused. The young adults are graduating shortly from university and grew up perfectly normally after having surgery as infants. The mEdical professionals know how advanced surgery is now to help these babies so they know in their conscience that some of these cases are not fatal. In these circumstances the option is to go to the UK where you can have an abortion no questions asked at twenty four weeks. This is not what was put before the Irish electorate, ie women deciding themselves what was FFA or not and to be honest most Irish people dont vote for Ruth Coppinger or Brid Smyth on any matter and they most definitely wouldnt support these politicans views on abortion. Both of them are so unstatesman or woman like, please God the tiny vote will dwindle to nothing shortly so we can see the back of them. They are using the Dail to push their own liberal agendas on abortion and this is so wrong when Irish people were categorically assured that we would not end up with an abortion regime like they have in the UK. We are two weeks into abortion on demand up to twelve weeks and the pressure is already on, the end games is an abortion regime like the UK, lets stop pretending now this wont happen quite soon.

tretorn

amcalester wrote: »

Curios to hear what you think about this. Do you think this woman should be allowed have an abortion?

Its not end of the Roads opinion (or the parents of the baby involved in this cases opinion).

The abortion legislation which is now law is that a FFA abnormality has to be diagnosed as such by two medical professionals in order to procure an abortion after twelve weeks.

We have removed the Constitutional protection of life from the unborn up to twelve weeks in its entirety but the taking of their life after this point in time can only happen under limited circumstances under the legislation. If the two medical professionals involved are not willing to say for certain that the defect is fatal then an abortion cannot take place.

The Law is a terrible hindrance when you cant get what you want.

[Deleted User]

tretorn wrote: »

WThis is not what was put before the Irish electorate, ie women deciding themselves what was FFA or not and to be honest most Irish people dont vote for Ruth Coppinger or Brid Smyth on any matter and they most definitely wouldnt support these politicans views on abortion.

Again you claim this and offer not support.

amcalester

tretorn wrote: »

Well, the decision resting in the womans hands is not what the electorate voted so, this is very inconvenient for those people wanting a very liberal abortion regime but Irish people were told abortion would only be available after twelve weeks in certain specific circumstances, ie in cases where FFA is diagnosed and confirmed in the opinion of two medical professionals and on mental health grounds where continuing with a pregnancy could cause a woman to be suicidal.

I know two young adults who were diagnosed with having organs outside their bodies. Parents were advised to go to the Uk for abortions but refused. The young adults are graduating shortly from university and grew up perfectly normally after having surgery as infants. The mEdical professionals know how advanced surgery is now to help these babies so they know in their conscience that some of these cases are not fatal. In these circumstances the option is to go to the UK where you can have an abortion no questions asked at twenty four weeks. This is not what was put before the Irish electorate, ie women deciding themselves what was FFA or not and to be honest most Irish people dont vote for Ruth Coppinger or Brid Smyth on any matter and they most definitely wouldnt support these politicans views on abortion. Both of them are so unstatesman or woman like, please God the tiny vote will dwindle to nothing shortly so we can see the back of them. They are using the Dail to push their own liberal agendas on abortion and this is so wrong when Irish people were categorically assured that we would not end up with an abortion regime like they have in the UK. We are two weeks into abortion on demand up to twelve weeks and the pressure is already on, the end games is an abortion regime like the UK, lets stop pretending now this wont happen quite soon.

Seamus is not suggesting that women should be the ones to decide if a FFA is present, but I think they should have a say in whether they have an abortion or not.

A woman deciding with her doctors to have an abortion after a FFA has been diagnosed, is not the same as a woman diagnosing a FFA.

amcalester

tretorn wrote: »

Its not end of the Roads opinion (or the parents of the baby involved in this cases opinion).

The abortion legislation which is now law is that a FFA abnormality has to be diagnosed as such by two medical professionals in order to procure an abortion after twelve weeks.

We have removed the Constitutional protection of life from the unborn up to twelve weeks in its entirety but the taking of their life after this point in time can only happen under limited circumstances under the legislation. If the two medical professionals involved are not willing to say for certain that the defect is fatal then an abortion cannot take place.

The Law is a terrible hindrance when you cant get what you want.

The news reports are that 2 consultants agreed and diagnosed a FFA.

The woman who was attending the Coombe hospital in Dublin was certified by two doctors as eligible for an abortion under the new legislation, which has been in operation for nearly three weeks.

tretorn

What support do you need, those women represent a tiny, tiny proportion of the Irish People and they way more media coverage for their rantings than is warranted.

Do you seriously think if the electorate were asked to vote that abortions should be available after twelve weeks if a woman requested it this would have passed through the Dail and through a Constitutional amendment.

Its irrelevant anyway at this point in time,the legislation clearly states the grounds on which abortions can be carried out after twelve weeks and any consultant performing abortions outside these time limits could be struck off and lose their livelihood.

Its all very well for keyboard warriors to be abusing those involved in actually carrying out abortions, they are so far removed from carrying the responsibility of ending human life and they wont lose their livelihood no matter not.

[Deleted User]

tretorn wrote: »

What support do you need,

Same stuff you were asked for, and failed to present the last time you claimed this.
Evidence that the Irish hold the position you say they do.
Please show what evidence you are using to conclude:
"[the Irish People]most definitely wouldnt support these politicans views on abortion."

tretorn

amcalester wrote: »

Seamus is not suggesting that women should be the ones to decide if a FFA is present, but I think they should have a say in whether they have an abortion or not.

A woman deciding with her doctors to have an abortion after a FFA has been diagnosed, is not the same as a woman diagnosing a FFA.

Well, no, the electorate were told the foetus right to life was constitutionally protected after twelve weeks, the only constitutional amendment was to remove protection for life up to twelve weeks.

Abortion could only be carried out on foetuses after twelve weeks in case of FFAs that were confirmed by two medical professionals. No where in the legislation does it say the woman carrying the foetus with a defect should have a say, it quite clearly states the grounds on which life is to be terminated after twelve weeks and no amount of female hysterics in the Dail is going to change this.

How do I put king gob on ignore, wont waste my mind with his nonsense.

amcalester

tretorn wrote: »

What support do you need, those women represent a tiny, tiny proportion of the Irish People and they way more media coverage for their rantings than is warranted.

Do you seriously think if the electorate were asked to vote that abortions should be available after twelve weeks if a woman requested it this would have passed through the Dail and through a Constitutional amendment.

Its irrelevant anyway at this point in time,the legislation clearly states the grounds on which abortions can be carried out after twelve weeks and any consultant performing abortions outside these time limits could be struck off and lose their livelihood.

Its all very well for keyboard warriors to be abusing those involved in actually carrying out abortions, they are so far removed from carrying the responsibility of ending human life and they wont lose their livelihood no matter not.

You keep ignoring the fact that 2 doctors diagnosed a FFA and that is the reason this woman requested an abortion. That's pretty pertinent information.

Trying to twist this into simply a woman requesting an abortion after 12 weeks is very dishonest, and shows the usual lack of compassion we see from the anti-choice brigade.

amcalester

tretorn wrote: »

Well, no, the electorate were told the foetus right to life was constitutionally protected after twelve weeks, the only constitutional amendment was to remove protection for life up to twelve weeks.

Abortion could only be carried out on foetuses after twelve weeks in case of FFAs that were confirmed by two medical professionals. No where in the legislation does it say the woman carrying the foetus with a defect should have a say, it quite clearly states the grounds on which life is to be terminated after twelve weeks and no amount of female hysterics in the Dail is going to change this.

How do I put king gob on ignore, wont waste my mind with his nonsense.

But any abortion isn't going to be carried out against the woman's wishes, ergo she has a say.

It's all about choice.