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

aloyisious

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

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?

Mention was made by the hospital of guidelines in it's response. I'm assuming that they are either Coombe Hospital or Gynaecological College guidelines. I know such guidelines are lesser to statute law but the various medical bodies and colleges are allowed by the Irish Govt and judiciary to set guidelines which can constrict medics working freedoms, extra to those of statute law. That's the rub for medics: comply with the law but fall outside their professional body's guidelines, get hauled before a judge by said body for professional misconduct and struck off. The hospital probably has hiring and firing rights under it's guidelines to it's staff.

Loafing Oaf

volchitsa wrote: »

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?

Probably not, but the only solid mandate the government had in drawing up the legislation was to stick as closely as possible to the draft legislation. And that was very clear about the criteria for a "fatal foetal abnormality."

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

If a woman was dying then she’d have the abortion. That’s been the case for years.

Well as we seen with Savita Halappanavar that wasn't always been the case.

It will be interesting to see if there are more reports similar to this in the future, given the publicly about this case.

I'm not saying either party is lying in this case, I'm working abroad again for a couple of weeks and access to news is limited unfortunately.
However if the reports that the hospital refused to release a copy of the patients medical records to them are true then it will appear that they are trying to conceal something to some people. But it can be a difficult process to gain access to your records.

tretorn

Unless the two Doctors are of the opinion the baby will undoubtedly die before birth of within twenty eight days after birth then abortion the foetus is illegal and no Doctor will risk their livelihood carrying it out.

This is the legislation and Coppinger and Smyth as Dail deputies should be aware of it.

The end game for them is a much more liberal abortion regime and in my opinion they ran with this case without checking out the facts, they are lying low now and saying nothing at all.

Its a bit like Mary Lou McDonald and the cervical check debacle, she went in all guns blaming and then shut up completely when the facts were established. The Cervicalcheck scheme is now in tatters though and testing is taking weeks on end. Those who can afford to pay for tests privately will and the less well off will wait a couple of months while in some cases their cancers progress.

Its great to be a TD when you have no real interest in actually having to take responsibility for any portfolio or problem you can sit on the fence and screech while other people do their best within the HSE mess that is the health service.

[Deleted User]

tretorn wrote: »

Unless the two Doctors are of the opinion the baby will undoubtedly die before birth of within twenty eight days after birth then abortion the foetus is illegal and no Doctor will risk their livelihood carrying it out.

This is the legislation and Coppinger and Smyth as Dail deputies should be aware of it.

The end game for them is a much more liberal abortion regime and in my opinion they ran with this case without checking out the facts, they are lying low now and saying nothing at all.

Its a bit like Mary Lou McDonald and the cervical check debacle, she went in all guns blaming and then shut up completely when the facts were established. The Cervicalcheck scheme is now in tatters though and testing is taking weeks on end. Those who can afford to pay for tests privately will and the less well off will wait a couple of months while in some cases their cancers progress.

Its great to be a TD when you have no real interest in actually having to take responsibility for any portfolio or problem you can sit on the fence and screech while other people do their best within the HSE mess that is the health service.

Cervical testing lab work is done outside of the state regardless of whether you go public or private as the PDs decided that out sourcing such items was the way to go when they were in power.

Also if the patient is correct two consultants stated that they believed that a FFA was present and that would be the requirement based on the current legislation. You have been banging the its a plot for a more liberal regime drum for a while in the associated threads but haven't provided any facts to back this up despite multiple requests.

ohnonotgmail

tretorn wrote: »

Unless the two Doctors are of the opinion the baby will undoubtedly die before birth of within twenty eight days after birth then abortion the foetus is illegal and no Doctor will risk their livelihood carrying it out.

This is the legislation and Coppinger and Smyth as Dail deputies should be aware of it.

The end game for them is a much more liberal abortion regime and in my opinion they ran with this case without checking out the facts, they are lying low now and saying nothing at all.

Its a bit like Mary Lou McDonald and the cervical check debacle, she went in all guns blaming and then shut up completely when the facts were established. The Cervicalcheck scheme is now in tatters though and testing is taking weeks on end. Those who can afford to pay for tests privately will and the less well off will wait a couple of months while in some cases their cancers progress.

Its great to be a TD when you have no real interest in actually having to take responsibility for any portfolio or problem you can sit on the fence and screech while other people do their best within the HSE mess that is the health service.

Any chance you might substantiate the two claims you made that i quoted in my post linked here? As per the forum charter you are obliged to do so. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109177642&postcount=9463

Loafing Oaf

tretorn wrote: »

Unless the two Doctors are of the opinion the baby will undoubtedly die before birth of within twenty eight days after birth then abortion the foetus is illegal and no Doctor will risk their livelihood carrying it out.

Not undoubtedly: "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.”

Hotblack Desiato

splinter65 wrote: »

In my opinion either they confused foetal with fatal

Interesting theory, any facts to back it up with?

Hotblack Desiato

tretorn wrote: »

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

The Dail doesn't sit at weekends (it doesn't usually sit on Fridays, either.)

If any member abuses Dail privilege to make abusive or incorrect statements, a complaints procedure is in place. Talk to your local anti-choice FF TD for more details.

aloyisious

There's an article on page 2 in the I/Times covering the new guidelines from the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on surgical terminations. It reads that "it is unlikely that surgical terminations of pregnancy after 12 weeks will be widely available nor that D&E [dilation & evacuation] after 14 weeks will be offered in Ireland in 2019 but that might change over time" the guidelines from the institute state.

The institute sought and received assurances, from the Dept of Health CMO, Dr Tony Holohan, that doctors carrying out procedures under the new abortion legislation would not be prosecuted. I'm assuming this was done to prevent any malicious-intent claims being made against the institute members by persons wanting to wreck the usage of the new legislation.

The article runs for another 17 paragraphs covering the guidelines on drugs & medicine, ultrasounds, and conscientious objections after the above paragraphs so it's worth getting a copy of the I/Times to read it fully. BTW, the front page article on the Coombe Hospital and the woman carries over on to page 2 alongside this article. inclusive of a copy of the hospital letter, with portions redacted to protect persons identity.

Hotblack Desiato

I am posting this in full, in the public interest, and I have reason to believe that the Irish Times would not object.

Fatal foetal abnormality cases ‘complex’
Doctors and politicians say diagnosis of the anomaly should be made by doctors
Jennifer Bray, Sylvia Thompson

Senior doctors and politicians have warned diagnosing a fatal foetal abnormality is a “complex” decision which should be made by doctors and not legislators.

It comes after Solidarity TD Ruth Coppinger and People Before Profit TD Brid Smith told the Dail this week a woman had been denied an abortion in the Coombe hospital despite her foetus being diagnosed with a fatal anomaly.

In letter to the woman this week, the hospital said the anomaly was complex, but not fatal under the terms of the newly-introduced abortion legislation. This states a termination can be carried out if there exists an anomaly that is likely to lead to the death of the foetus either before or within 28 days of birth.

Fine Gael TD Kate O’Connell criticised the decision to raise the woman’s case on the floor of the Dail, saying it should be left in the hands of doctors. “I think it was ill-judged. I think as elected members of Leinster House we have a responsibility to constituents when they come to us with issues to gauge the most appropriate way of dealing with the constituent, who in this case was in a crisis. My personal view would be that it was irresponsible and I would question the decision-making process that led to what happened,” she said.

“It is a complex issue and that is why two doctors must make this decision.”

One of the two certifying medical practitioners has to be an obstetrician while the other has to have a relevant speciality, she noted. She said there is “no ambiguity” in the law in that there is no provision for terminations on the grounds of disability and a termination will only be given where an anomaly is fatal.

Not clear-cut

Speaking in a personal capacity, obstetrician and former master of the Rotunda Hospital Dr Sam Coulter-Smith said decisions around what constitutes fatal foetal abnormality are not clear-cut. “A foetal medicine doctor has to make a judgment on whether the baby’s abnormality will be fatal within 28 days of birth and a colleague has to agree with that,” he said. “Decisions will have to consider situations whether a baby with an abnormality will die without treatment or if the condition might be treatable with surgical intervention.”

According to Dr Coulter-Smith, it is the interpretation of these scenarios which makes these decisions difficult. “These are individual clinical situations which need to be dealt with and interpreted within the existing new legislation and new guidelines. These situations are complex and clinicians need time and experience of the complexities of providing this new service,” he said.

‘Affected families’

Independent Senator Ronan Mullen said he believed the legislation in this regard went further than many had expected. “I think we have to find a way to care for the affected families and to also cherish the lives of the children involved. I think if it was the case that the prognosis was that they might live well beyond a short time, then I think that would be farther than a lot of people expected.”

In the lead-up to the referendum on the Eighth Amendment, politicians were warned of the complexities involved in diagnosing fatal foetal abnormalities.

Peter Thompson, a consultant in foetal medicine at Birmingham Women and Children’s Hospital, told the Oireachtas committee on the Eighth Amendment of potential difficulties in legislating for fatal conditions.

“The first thing is to decide what is the definition of ‘fatal’,” he said. “As a result of the history of the law on abortion in Ireland, it will be very difficult for Ireland’s obstetricians to decide. If it is decided in law that a fatal condition is one in which the baby always dies in utero, then we must consider that those conditions are exceptionally rare. I worry that if the term ‘fatal’ is used, some would argue that everything is fatal. The contrary argument is that nothing is fatal because it does not result in a death in every single case.”

Couple reject doctors’ opinion
Kitty Holland

The letter from the Coombe hospital to the couple at the centre of the latest abortion controversy is sympathetic, but clear. An abortion is not possible in this case as the baby might not die before birth or within 28 days, the legally prescribed time under which abortions in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities are allowed. “We recognise this is a very challenging time for you and your husband and we wish to offer you our full support at this time,” the letter states.

The doctors’ opinion is that, although their unborn baby has been diagnosed with a “complex foetal anomaly . . . we are not 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, as per the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018.”

The couple reject they were told their foetus had a “complex anomaly”, saying they were told clearly a week before the letter was issued that the anomaly was fatal. The Coombe hospital declined to respond to the couple’s claims, saying it could not comment on individual cases.

The words used in the letter are almost verbatim the text from section 11 of the Act, which says: “A termination of pregnancy may be carried out in accordance with this section where two 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.”

People Before Profit TD Brid Smith, who raised this case in the Dail on Thursday, said this underlined the rigour with which the hospital referred to the Act in its decision-making, adding it suggests an ongoing “chilling effect” from the legislation despite the enactment of the new legislation.

splinter65

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Interesting theory, any facts to back it up with?

It’s not really interesting. It’s just a theory. Fatal and foetal when your very upset and distressed can be easily confused. I did say it’s just my opinion. What’s your own opinion ?

Hotblack Desiato

My opinion is that that hypothesis is deeply stupid, you are determined to belittle and shame this woman.

[Deleted User]

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

My opinion is that that hypothesis is deeply stupid, you are determined to belittle and shame this woman.

I don’t think that she’s being either belittled or shamed. It’s a tragic situation being abused by female TDs for political gain. They should know better.

Odhinn

Deleted User wrote: »

I don’t think that she’s being either belittled or shamed. It’s a tragic situation being abused by female TDs for political gain. They should know better.

Unfortunately this is a combination of miscommunication and time-pressure which perhaps lessened the amount of due diligence by the two TD's. I don't see why there has to be blame here on anyone.

splinter65

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

My opinion is that that hypothesis is deeply stupid, you are determined to belittle and shame this woman.

The only hypothesis you are interested in is one in which an Archbishop can be blamed. That’s the only hypothesis you’re ever interested in. You’re going to find that increasingly difficult in the future though. It’s going to get very interesting.

Hotblack Desiato

I dream of an Ireland where we can't blame the church for anything, because they have no schools or hospitals left to control.

An_Toirpin

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I dream of an Ireland where we can't blame the church for anything because they have no schools or hospitals left to control.

Ain't no opression like anti religion opression.

Timberrrrrrrr

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Ain't no opression like anti religion opression.

How is wanting them out of schools/hospitals "oppression "?

Seperation of church and state should be something we all strive for.

An_Toirpin

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How is wanting them out of schools/hospitals "oppression "?

Restricting people's values from public life is oppression.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Seperation of church and state should be something we all strive for.

Nope, freedom of religion and right to assembly is what we should strive for. If you privilege religion as a value that should be separate, you have to separate other values too. That means no more minsters at gay pride events or and no more politicians imploring on the evil of homelessness. Essentially you'd have to create politicians who are moral vassals.

Timberrrrrrrr

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Restricting people's values from public life is oppression.

No.one is "oppressing" anyone

Nope, freedom of religion and right to assembly is what we should strive for.

You already have these.

If you privilege religion as a value that should be separate, you have to separate other values too. That means no more minsters at gay pride events or and no more politicians imploring on the evil of homelessness. Essentially you'd have to create politicians who are moral vassals.

When you have a gay organisation running a school and saying children of gay parents have privilege over other kids for places then come back to me.

Igotadose

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Restricting people's values from public life is oppression.

Nope, freedom of religion and right to assembly is what we should strive for. If you privilege religion as a value that should be separate, you have to separate other values too. That means no more minsters at gay pride events or and no more politicians imploring on the evil of homelessness. Essentially you'd have to create politicians who are moral vassals.

No. Freedom of religion, and freedom *from* religion. The US got this right. Everything else is tyranny of the majority (or in the case of the religious, rapidly becoming the minority.) Religion should have zero role in public affairs - education, health, politics, zero.

And, this is the abortion thread. Feel free to take up your dogma elsewhere, there's plenty of whining about the poor religious oppressed on other threads.

end of the road

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How is wanting them out of schools/hospitals "oppression "?

Seperation of church and state should be something we all strive for.

i'm sure when the majority of people stop putting catholic down on the census form because they aren't actually catholic, and when the state is willing to take actual responsibility for the schools and hospitals, then things will change. i can't see either happening any time soon, sadly.

An_Toirpin

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

No.one is "oppressing" anyone

You already have these.

When you have a gay organisation running a school and saying children of gay parents have privilege over other kids for places then come back to me.

You're coposter advocated that my rights are removed and yet you defend this. Based on hypothetical oppression of gay people. Get your position consistent please.

An_Toirpin

Igotadose wrote: »

No. Freedom of religion, and freedom *from* religion. The US got this right. Everything else is tyranny of the majority (or in the case of the religious, rapidly becoming the minority.) Religion should have zero role in public affairs - education, health, politics, zero.

And, this is the abortion thread. Feel free to take up your dogma elsewhere, there's plenty of whining about the poor religious oppressed on other threads.

So secular values are ok in public life but religious are not? The rhetoric of far left would have religion forcibly banned from public life.

gctest50

An_Toirpin wrote: »

So secular values are ok in public life but religious are not? The rhetoric of far left would have religion forcibly banned from public life.

Same old thing again and again :

go for extreeeeeme example :

An_Toirpin wrote: »

.................

FORCIBLY BANNED....

There is no need for all that forciby banned stuff, seem to manage just fine themselves

An_Toirpin wrote: »

It is clearly their second choice, due to lack of skills and earning power.

Look at the amount of people who changed from NO to YES because of tactics

An_Toirpin

gctest50 wrote: »

Same old thing again and again :

go for extreeeeeme example :

There is no need for all that forciby banned stuff, seem to manage just fine themselves

Look at the amount of people who changed from NO to YES because of tactics

Exactly. I'm fine with the way things are in Ireland. I don't agree with constitutional preamble for example, but mostly it is pretty good. I'm not the one banging on about discrimination Incase you didn't read my post. I'm commenting on people celebrating the suggested removal of rights.

Timberrrrrrrr

An_Toirpin wrote: »

You're coposter advocated that my rights are removed and yet you defend this. Based on hypothetical oppression of gay people. Get your position consistent please.

Where?

gctest50

An_Toirpin wrote: »

......................... I'm commenting on people celebrating the suggested removal of rights.

Celebrating ? I'd be hoping leo would go dictator so we could return to the glory days of quality

Look at this, that road is still there :

Being pestered by christians ? Nail 'em up

aloyisious

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Ain't no opression like anti religion opression.

Look on the bright side with Russia as an example of a reborn religious fervour. However, there are the below.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Russia

https://themoscowtimes.com/articles/russias-abortion-debate-is-back-55545