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

tretorn

Yes, it has been generally noted that Coppinger and Smyth have nothing more to say on this matter.

We can thank our lucky stars that there is no chance of them actually getting into power in this country.

They have no responsibility at all so they can continue to use the Dail to make outlandish claims and therefore get their faces in the papers.

Odhinn

aloyisious wrote: »

Yes, there are counterclaims on what was said. The woman and her partner say the two obstetricians told them verbally on the 10th Jan that the foetus had an FFA, and that the baby would not survive, that the gynaecologists used the words fatal foetal abnormality and that they did not mince their words. They said it would have to go to a board and they would certify it was an FFA. They discussed a termination with us they would set up the appointment after the meeting and how they would induce a miscarriage.

The hospital deny the gynaecologists used the words Fatal Foetal Abnormality, that the words used were Foetal Anomaly. The Hospital sent a letter [dated the 17th Jan] to the couple letting them know that the scan results showed a complex foetal anomaly and that, despite the complex anomaly, it was not of the reasonable opinion formed in good faith that there is present a condition that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before or within 28 days of birth as per the health [regulation of termination of pregnancy] act 2018. the letter mentioned that a multidisciplinary meeting was held at the hospital on the 16th Jan [the previous day] to decide what was to be done and it recommended a review the health of the foetus in four [4] weeks time.
It also mentioned that the woman could apply for a review by the HSE.

The woman seems to have gone to the TD's that day [17th Jan] as that is the day the matter was raised in the Dail, presumably after she got the letter from the hospital. There is more in the article on side issues.

Edit, I don't see any mention in the article of the hospital denying the alleged mention of the Gynaecologists discussing a termination with the couple on the 10th and of inducing a miscarriage. The hospital statement mentions that it will not be ready to provide a FULL ABORTION SERVICE til the near future so it must be able to provide a service now even if it's minimal.

Given the stress of the situation it may well be that they didn't pick up the caveats the Doctors may have given.'if',;probably','could','should'

aloyisious

splinter65 wrote: »

If you can’t see how a terribly upset very emotional heartbroken couple getting a letter at home could read foetal as fatal then we’ll just have to leave it at that.

Umm, she said the Gynae's told her AND her partner verbally on the 10th that the foetus had a Foetal Fatal Abnormality. The hospital letter of the 17th differs, saying the Gynae's said they used the words Foetal Anomaly [one word less] when discussing the scan results with the woman on the 10th. The letter followed on from a hospital multidiscipline meeting on the 16th, 6 days later.

It would be interesting to find out what different sectors and specialities from the hospital were at the multidiscipline meeting deciding on the course of treatment the hospital was prepared to offer the woman.

Hopefully the Gynae's covered their asses and kept contemporary medical history notes of what they said to the couple and not something written up days afterwards, as sometimes happens with busy hospital medical staff.

volchitsa

splinter65 wrote: »

I didn’t say she was lying. You’d like if I said that but that’s not what I said.
In my opinion either they confused foetal with fatal and in the midst of their crisis assumed that they were being refused an abortion even though they appeared in their own minds to meet the criteria. So the clock is ticking and there’s no point in getting into it with the hospital so they bypassed the hospital and their own GP and went to the 2 most sympathetic TDs they could think of.
Who in turn ploughed thoughtlessly into a media storm having made 0 further enquires. Since Thursday there’s been no further comment from either of them after the Coombe explained their position.
Or
The couple heard the diagnosis and prognosis and disagreed and were unhappy with that verdict and wanted a second opinion. No blame there either.

But all of this is just you searching desperately for a way to say the woman is wrong without actually accusing her of lying. It's based on nothing except a determination to invent some sort of scenario that allows you to do that.

It reminds me of nothing more than all the desperate denials about the Halappanavars being told "This is a catholic country". And we know who was telling the truth there, don't we.

splinter65

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

so you're back to saying the woman was lying about two obstetricians agreeing she had an FFA pregnancy, then.

I didn’t say she was lying. You’d like if I said that but that’s not what I said.
In my opinion either they confused foetal with fatal and in the midst of their crisis assumed that they were being refused an abortion even though they appeared in their own minds to meet the criteria. So the clock is ticking and there’s no point in getting into it with the hospital so they bypassed the hospital and their own GP and went to the 2 most sympathetic TDs they could think of.
Who in turn ploughed thoughtlessly into a media storm having made 0 further enquires. Since Thursday there’s been no further comment from either of them after the Coombe explained their position.
Or
The couple heard the diagnosis and prognosis and disagreed and were unhappy with that verdict and wanted a second opinion. No blame there either.

volchitsa

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Not grounds for termination of pregnancy under the law though, the doctors' hands are tied if the scenario is as you outline.

If you are correct do you think that is within the spirit of the law that most people believed was going to replace POLDP when they voted to repeal the 8th?

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

If a woman was dying then she’d have the abortion. That’s been the case for years. This woman is not dying. She’s not unwell at all. As far as the doctors are concerned her baby right now isn’t dying. The law says that an abortion can be carried out now in the case of a fatal Foetal abnormality. The hospital say that while the baby has a foetal anomoly, it isn’t fatal as yet. The law is the law. No?

so you're back to saying the woman was lying about two obstetricians agreeing she had an FFA pregnancy, then.

Loafing Oaf

volchitsa wrote: »

S

Haven't got a link here, but it's not just some minor anomaly, nor even a major but isolated one, it's a combination of several major anomalies, including limbs that are wrongly situated and malformed. I don't see how anomalies like that could ever be repaired to the extent of giving the child a normal life - assuming it can survive at all. It looks to me like the sort of multiple abnormalities that would mean the baby spending all or most of a shortish life in a hospital either having or recovering from various major surgeries.

And then there's the likelihood of mental retardation as well, which often occurs when there are multiple fetal anomalies.

If it were me, I don't think I would feel I was entitled to bring a child like that into the world, for it to spend its life undergoing painful surgical procedures.

Not grounds for termination of pregnancy under the law though, the doctors' hands are tied if the scenario is as you outline.

end of the road

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

...and what if a woman was dying?

So really the Coombe is ready to carry out abortions, and has been for at least the last five years. They are just choosing not to carry out certain types of abortion even though the law has changed.

on what basis do you state they are choosing not tocarry out certain types of abortion? being able to carry out an abortion here and there is not the same as being able to provide a full abortion system. i'd suggest the likely reality is that they don't have the resources needed availible yet to provide abortions on a bigger scale then they were doing. unless you rather they rushed things together? you need to except it that hospitalls will only cary out abortions when they are fully ready to do so. no amount of blaming religion or accusing people of whatever will change that fact.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That would be completely the wrong approach to take in a country where the health system has hushed up too many scandals involving womens' health already.

well it seems that method hasn't worked either in this case.

[Deleted User]

volchitsa wrote: »

Oh FFS. How stupid do you think someone is, to go all the way up to their TD about being refused a termination of a much wanted pregnancy, just because they misread fatal and foetal???

Even if she could make the mistake (I dint believe it, myself) that also means that not a single person that they then interacted with in hospital or wherever, in between times, noticed the woman saying this and thought to put her right. I can't find a rolling-eyes emoticon that's rolly-eyed enough for that.

When people go running to AAA/PBP or whatever they’re called now, anything is possible. The sensible first port of call would surely be their GP. Not a TD.

volchitsa

splinter65 wrote: »

If you can’t see how a terribly upset very emotional heartbroken couple getting a letter at home could read foetal as fatal then we’ll just have to leave it at that.

And if you can't see that a moment of shock leading someone to misread a line in a letter is a very different proposition to a couple being so convinced that this is what they were told in a whole conversation, and them then asking for an abortion on those grounds, and nobody ever noticing that it was all down to a simple misreading of a letter, then I think you really should leave it at that.

volchitsa

aloyisious wrote: »

Yes, there are counterclaims on what was said. The woman and her partner say the two obstetricians told them verbally on the 10th Jan that the foetus had an FFA, and that the baby would not survive, that the gynaecologists used the words fatal foetal abnormality and that they did not mince their words. They said it would have to go to a board and they would certify it was an FFA. They discussed a termination with us they would set up the appointment after the meeting and how they would induce a miscarriage.

So no doubts in the gynes' minds apparently.
This board, though - is it required by the new law?
Or is it an extra layer of obstacles put in place by the usual suspects to prevent couples from accessing an abortion as the law allows them to?

The hospital deny the gynaecologists used the words Fatal Foetal Abnormality, that the words used were Foetal Anomaly. The Hospital sent a letter [dated the 17th Jan] to the couple letting them know that the scan results showed a complex foetal anomaly and that, despite the complex anomaly, it was not of the reasonable opinion formed in good faith that there is present a condition that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before or within 28 days of birth as per the health [regulation of termination of pregnancy] act 2018. the letter mentioned that a multidisciplinary meeting was held at the hospital on the 16th Jan [the previous day] to decide what was to be done and it recommended a review the health of the foetus in four [4] weeks time.
It also mentioned that the woman could apply for a review by the HSE.

Haven't got a link here, but it's not just some minor anomaly, nor even a major but isolated one, it's a combination of several major anomalies, including limbs that are wrongly situated and malformed. I don't see how anomalies like that could ever be repaired to the extent of giving the child a normal life - assuming it can survive at all. It looks to me like the sort of multiple abnormalities that would mean the baby spending all or most of a shortish life in a hospital either having or recovering from various major surgeries.

And then there's the likelihood of mental retardation as well, which often occurs when there are multiple fetal anomalies.

If it were me, I don't think I would feel I was entitled to bring a child like that into the world, for it to spend its life undergoing painful surgical procedures.

Even assuming it didn't die during one of those, what life would it have?

The woman seems to have gone to the TD's that day [17th Jan] as that is the day the matter was raised in the Dail, presumably after she got the letter from the hospital. There is more in the article on side issues.

Edit, I don't see any mention in the article of the hospital denying the alleged mention of the Gynaecologists discussing a termination with the couple on the 10th and of inducing a miscarriage. The hospital statement mentions that it will not be ready to provide a FULL ABORTION SERVICE til the near future so it must be able to provide a service now even if it's minimal.

Yes, it seems there was no problem with carrying out the abortion, as long as permission was got. It was the permission that was the issue. And in law, who exactly is supposed to give or withhold permission other than the two specialists?

splinter65

volchitsa wrote: »

Oh FFS. How stupid do you think someone is, to go all the way up to their TD about being refused a termination of a much wanted pregnancy, just because they misread fatal and foetal???

Even if she could make the mistake (I dint believe it, myself) that also means that not a single person that they then interacted with in hospital or wherever, in between times, noticed the woman saying this and thought to put her right. I can't find a rolling-eyes emoticon that's rolly-eyed enough for that.

If you can’t see how a terribly upset very emotional heartbroken couple getting a letter at home could read foetal as fatal then we’ll just have to leave it at that.

splinter65

volchitsa wrote: »

Oh FFS. How stupid do you think someone is, to go all the way up to their TD about being refused a termination of a much wanted pregnancy, just because they misread fatal and foetal???

Even if she could make the mistake (I dint believe it, myself) that also means that not a single person that they then interacted with in hospital or wherever, in between times, noticed the woman saying this and thought to put her right.

Maybe she didn’t make a mistake then. It’s possible she doesn’t agree with the advice/prognosis/diagnoses she received.
That happens every day. That why people look for second opinions.
So she went to some sympathetic TDs to object. And they got the wrong end of the stick. And ran with it. Neither of them have anything to say today.

splinter65

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

...and what if a woman was dying?

So really the Coombe is ready to carry out abortions, and has been for at least the last five years. They are just choosing not to carry out certain types of abortion even though the law has changed.

If a woman was dying then she’d have the abortion. That’s been the case for years. This woman is not dying. She’s not unwell at all. As far as the doctors are concerned her baby right now isn’t dying. The law says that an abortion can be carried out now in the case of a fatal Foetal abnormality. The hospital say that while the baby has a foetal anomoly, it isn’t fatal as yet. The law is the law. No?

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone going for a scan is a bit apprehensive anyway. The words “Foetal Abnormality” could easily be taken to be “Fatal Abnormality”

Oh FFS. How stupid do you think someone is, to go all the way up to their TD about being refused a termination of a much wanted pregnancy, just because they misread fatal and foetal???

Even if she could make the mistake (I dint believe it, myself) that also means that not a single person that they then interacted with in hospital or wherever, in between times, noticed the woman saying this and thought to put her right. I can't find a rolling-eyes emoticon that's rolly-eyed enough for that.

aloyisious

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Could they not have approached Simon Harris privately and asked him to look into it, keeping the whole thing out of the public eye? Just asking, I don't know how these things work in practice.

He'd have probably have had to go through the hoops of his Dep to the HSE, and THEM to the hospital, before any reply would follow after meetings, say two working weeks for a reply.

Hotblack Desiato

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Could they not have approached Simon Harris privately and asked him to look into it, keeping the whole thing out of the public eye? Just asking, I don't know how these things work in practice.

That would be completely the wrong approach to take in a country where the health system has hushed up too many scandals involving womens' health already.

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

You’re missing the point completely. The Coombe won’t be ready to carry out ANY abortions until February 4th.

...and what if a woman was dying?

So really the Coombe is ready to carry out abortions, and has been for at least the last five years. They are just choosing not to carry out certain types of abortion even though the law has changed.

aloyisious

Odhinn wrote: »

I can only see part of this article - it appears that theres crossed wires here. The woman maintains she was told it was a FFA, the hospital says not.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-refused-abortion-says-she-was-told-of-fatal-abnormality-1.3763233?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Fwoman-refused-abortion-says-she-was-told-of-fatal-abnormality-1.3763233

Yes, there are counterclaims on what was said. The woman and her partner say the two obstetricians told them verbally on the 10th Jan that the foetus had an FFA, and that the baby would not survive, that the gynaecologists used the words fatal foetal abnormality and that they did not mince their words. They said it would have to go to a board and they would certify it was an FFA. They discussed a termination with us they would set up the appointment after the meeting and how they would induce a miscarriage.

The hospital deny the gynaecologists used the words Fatal Foetal Abnormality, that the words used were Foetal Anomaly. The Hospital sent a letter [dated the 17th Jan] to the couple letting them know that the scan results showed a complex foetal anomaly and that, despite the complex anomaly, it was not of the reasonable opinion formed in good faith that there is present a condition that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before or within 28 days of birth as per the health [regulation of termination of pregnancy] act 2018. the letter mentioned that a multidisciplinary meeting was held at the hospital on the 16th Jan [the previous day] to decide what was to be done and it recommended a review the health of the foetus in four [4] weeks time.
It also mentioned that the woman could apply for a review by the HSE.

The woman seems to have gone to the TD's that day [17th Jan] as that is the day the matter was raised in the Dail, presumably after she got the letter from the hospital. There is more in the article on side issues.

Edit, I don't see any mention in the article of the hospital denying the alleged mention of the Gynaecologists discussing a termination with the couple on the 10th and of inducing a miscarriage. The hospital statement mentions that it will not be ready to provide a FULL ABORTION SERVICE til the near future so it must be able to provide a service now even if it's minimal.

[Deleted User]

Odhinn wrote: »

I can only see part of this article - it appears that theres crossed wires here. The woman maintains she was told it was a FFA, the hospital says not.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-refused-abortion-says-she-was-told-of-fatal-abnormality-1.3763233?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Fwoman-refused-abortion-says-she-was-told-of-fatal-abnormality-1.3763233

Anyone going for a scan is a bit apprehensive anyway. The words “Foetal Abnormality” could easily be taken to be “Fatal Abnormality”

splinter65

Odhinn wrote: »

I can only see part of this article - it appears that theres crossed wires here. The woman maintains she was told it was a FFA, the hospital says not.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-refused-abortion-says-she-was-told-of-fatal-abnormality-1.3763233?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Fwoman-refused-abortion-says-she-was-told-of-fatal-abnormality-1.3763233

Crossed wires, misunderstanding, maybe a barrack room lawyer somewhere in the family/friends wading in with unhelpful advice. It’s very easy when your very upset and hurt to get the wrong end of the stick.

Odhinn

I can only see part of this article - it appears that theres crossed wires here. The woman maintains she was told it was a FFA, the hospital says not.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/woman-refused-abortion-says-she-was-told-of-fatal-abnormality-1.3763233?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fsocial-affairs%2Fwoman-refused-abortion-says-she-was-told-of-fatal-abnormality-1.3763233

aloyisious

splinter65 wrote: »

But the Coombe were able to comment as quickly as that evening and make further comment yesterday in order to correct what they saw as misinformation. They were entitled to put their side of the story. There must have been a way to clear up the misunderstanding without screaming it all over the media.

Yes, on the allegation made about the board, and that's ALL it did. Absolutely no argument about that.

Your [There must have been a way to clear up the misunderstanding without screaming it all over the media] can't be answered by me.

splinter65

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If willing to do it on Feb 4, why not now?

You were implying the whole story is fake, but now you admit it's not, otherwise there would be no abortion on Feb 4

They didn’t say they would do this abortion on Feb 4. They said there would be surgical abortions in the Coombe from the 4th.
The version of the events around this case, as put forth by the TDs is,most certainly, fake.
You need to read the latest statement from the Coombe and you need to understand the legislation.

splinter65

aloyisious wrote: »

In fairness to the two TD's, the hospital could have only replied that it couldn't comment on individual cases, if it could comment at all on a patient's history, confidentiality and data protection law.. The only other source would be the woman who gave them what she had. I can't see any other clarification source for the TD's.

But the Coombe were able to comment as quickly as that evening and make further comment yesterday in order to correct what they saw as misinformation. They were entitled to put their side of the story. There must have been a way to clear up the misunderstanding without screaming it all over the media.

Bredabe

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Could they not have approached Simon Harris privately and asked him to look into it, keeping the whole thing out of the public eye? Just asking, I don't know how these things work in practice.

I wonder if the family involved wanted it publicised, so show the weaknesses in the system. Maybe to force hospitals to implement faster.

I'm only guessing based on the emotional state we were in when we had a situation with a cancer patient.

[Deleted User]

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

If willing to do it on Feb 4, why not now?

You were implying the whole story is fake, but now you admit it's not, otherwise there would be no abortion on Feb 4

You’re missing the point completely. The Coombe won’t be ready to carry out ANY abortions until February 4th. Similar to St Luke’s, Kilkenny. There’s a list of hospitals that are ready on HSE website. It would appear that the feotal abnormality isn’t fatal, despite Coppinger and Smiths protestations.

This is an extremely sad case abused by the aforementioned TDs for political gain. SHAME on them.

Loafing Oaf

aloyisious wrote: »

In fairness to the two TD's, the hospital could have only replied that it couldn't comment on individual cases, if it could comment at all on a patient's history, confidentiality and data protection law.. The only other source would be the woman who gave them what she had. I can't see any other clarification source for the TD's.

Could they not have approached Simon Harris privately and asked him to look into it, keeping the whole thing out of the public eye? Just asking, I don't know how these things work in practice.

tretorn

The pregnant woman passed some comment about the bar being set too high for fatal foetal abnormalities, this set the alrms bells ringing for me.

The legislation clearly set out the circumstances where abortion could be carried out after twelve weeks and the decision regarding fatal is a decision for medical professionals only.

Even Kate O Connell, she of the " We won" jibe across the floor of the Dail has said Coppinger and Smyth should not have brought this sad case up in the Dail.