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

Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

judeboy101

https://www.thejournal.ie/holles-st-review-termination-of-pregnancy-4639179-May2019/

interesting one. Docs obviously fecked up test but mother didn't want a dodgy baby

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Phil.x

SusieBlue wrote: »

Unbelievable

Yes thats what i thought when i found out.

Whiplash85

rovers_runner wrote: »

The hypocrisy of the Pro choice side here is unbelievable.
They took their opportunity to run with their modern Ireland poster victim Savita Hallipinavar to push through their agenda, and now they declare this is tragedy is a once off, an anomaly...

Sadly this is the way this country has gone, this poor baby was written off the moment their was a possibility of a problem.
The new hip liberal generation who don't face a challenge, they take the soft option, as long as their lifestyle doesn't take the hit...

These want to be parents should have been encouraged to wait and hope that things may turn out well, and at least to give every medial avenue a chance. They were steered towards the soft inhumane option by the agenda of their hospitals senior obs, who was incidentally a poster girl for the repeal campaign.

Outstanding post. Exactly my sentiments

[Deleted User]

troyzer wrote: »

I don't think it would be 100%. But I think an 85-90% vote would be possible.

The percentage of people who think women should be forced to carry dead foetuses to term is vanishingly small.

I don't think it would have been that high personally.

screamer

Reading the story reported again, you know what, i think it’ll be best to wait for a review to be done on this. There are 2 sides to every story and to hear them the inquiry is needed. Course that won’t replace the lost baby/ foetus, but lessons need to be learned on this to prevent future occurrences.

SpodoKamodo

screamer wrote: »

I’m just wondering, why test the foetus after termination.... what difference at that stage? and worse that there was no genetic defect found, why do that when the decision is just final and irreversible. I just don’t understand, it seems additionally cruel on the parents.

They didn't retest. The CVS test provides 2 results from the samples taken from the placenta. The first results are returned after about 3 days, which confirm the presence of a trisomy. This is where there is a chance of a false positive. The second results are returned after about 10 days, as the sample needs to be grown for testing for rarer conditions.

kowloon

Phil.x wrote: »

Ok, but why not give birth to the baby even if you're told it won't live, surely it can't be any worse than having an abortion.

It would be worse for the baby if they had to go through a slow death, and being able to feel it. Being aborted at the earliest stage in development possible is the humane way to do things.

Phil.x

kowloon wrote: »

It would be worse for the baby if they had to go through a slow death, and being able to feel it. Being aborted at the earliest stage in development possible is the humane way to do things.

Not a chance.

SusieBlue

Phil.x wrote: »

Not a chance.

In your opinion, which isn’t fact.

petalgumdrops

I wasn't going to reply to this thread but during the ref campaign I told my story on the 8th amendment thread on how my baby was misdiagnosed with a ffa. I had a CVS that confirmed a rare trisomy and was told that there was no chance of survival for my child. Pushed to abort in a country with no immediate access to termination I was afforded time to consider all options and take further diagnostic testing (Amnio)! Boylan stated during the campaign that a CVS was 99% accuarate - this was no challenged and so it is no wonder there is so much misinformation out there! Looking at the usernames on this thread I vaguely remember some horrible interactions Yes voters had with me over my story. Taunted that at least I had a choice and that this would never happen in the event the 8th was repealed. Comments of double and triple checking and that I was scaremongering! my concern was exactly that this would happen and it has. Yes voters questioned the authenticity of my story. Yet now a similar story, almost a carbon copy is declared as medical negligence, mistakes from doctors and that heads should roll?! Sue for what? This baby had no right to life.
The referendum removed the right to life to the unborn. Yes voters pointed to the fact contraception is not 100% effective and unwanted pregnancies occur ( which is true) however hospitals give very clear caveats that diagnostic testing is not 100% accurate and unfortunately as tragic as this case is the fact that the couple consented to a termination indicates that they accepted that 1% margin of error. I can't see any redress for this couple. Without the 8th unborn babies have zero constitutional protection or rights. The doctors are legally responsible for the Woman only and if you read the legislation that was passed there is no right to life for the fetus until it has 'fully emerged' from the woman's body. Tragic for the parents.

AidoEirE

Phil.x wrote: »

They wanted the baby.......... they ended up choosing to cut short the baby's life............rather than check for sure that the baby they so badly wanted wouldn't survive.........that IS a bad choice.

They ended up choosing based on the information given to them. Not like they suddenly decided not to have it.
Dont blame the would be grieving mother and father, blame the fact the information given to them by professionals in the field was wrong, which should be the main focus here.

Plumbthedepths

petalgumdrops wrote:

I wasn't going to reply to this thread but during the ref campaign I told my story on the 8th amendment thread on how my baby was misdiagnosed with a ffa. I had a CVS that confirmed a rare trisomy and was told that there was no chance of survival for my child. Pushed to abort in a country with no immediate access to termination I was afforded time to consider all options and take further diagnostic testing (Amnio)! Boylan stated during the campaign that a CVS was 99% accuarate - this was no challenged and so it is no wonder there is so much misinformation out there! Looking at the usernames on this thread I vaguely remember some horrible interactions Yes voters had with me over my story. Taunted that at least I had a choice and that this would never happen in the event the 8th was repealed. Comments of double and triple checking and that I was scaremongering! my concern was exactly that this would happen and it has. Yes voters questioned the authenticity of my story. Yet now a similar story, almost a carbon copy is declared as medical negligence, mistakes from doctors and that heads should roll?! Sue for what? This baby had no right to life. The referendum removed the right to life to the unborn. Yes voters pointed to the fact contraception is not 100% effective and unwanted pregnancies occur ( which is true) however hospitals give very clear caveats that diagnostic testing is not 100% accurate and unfortunately as tragic as this case is the fact that the couple consented to a termination indicates that they accepted that 1% margin of error. I can't see any redress for this couple. Without the 8th unborn babies have zero constitutional protection or rights. The doctors are legally responsible for the Woman only and if you read the legislation that was passed there is no right to life for the fetus until it has 'fully emerged' from the woman's body. Tragic for the parents.

So you believe without the 8th every pregnancy is in danger, would you ever cop on.

Mrs OBumble

screamer wrote: »

I’m just wondering, why test the foetus after termination.... what difference at that stage? and worse that there was no genetic defect found, why do that when the decision is just final and irreversible. I just don’t understand, it seems additionally cruel on the parents.

Possibly because information about the disease / impairment status of the bably impacts the estimates of other babies produced by the couple having the same issues.

(I don't know if it's the case for this particular disease. But I do know that it's true for some issues.)

kaymin

SusieBlue wrote: »

A mistake was made here, that’s for sure.
It’s looking like it was medical negligence and that the lack of conclusiveness wasn’t properly explained to the parents but only time will tell as to what actually happened.

I feel the legislation as it is is sufficient but the good thing is that now that the 8th has been removed from the constitution, we can now amend legislation with no need for a referendum. Again only time will tell as the legislation is put into practice.
I still don’t agree that repeal was to blame and I reject that this would never have happened if the abortion ban was still in place.

I don't see how the hospital made a mistake. The first rapid test is never 100% accurate and it seems this was explained to the parents per the IT:

Rotunda Hospital master Prof Fergal Malone said because the rapid test can give a false positive if there is no ultrasound abnormality most laboratories recommend to wait for the full two weeks.

“But some patients are not prepared to wait the two weeks and want to continue to termination. Generally we recommend that they get the total picture.”

Gimme A Pound

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

No offence, but pointless post.

What's the point in saying "I'd like to say a few things but I'd be banned"? It doesn't mean anything.

El_Duderino 09

screamer wrote: »

I’m just wondering, why test the foetus after termination.... what difference at that stage? and worse that there was no genetic defect found, why do that when the decision is just final and irreversible. I just don’t understand, it seems additionally cruel on the parents.

I would have thought this case proves the merit of testing after termination. The post termination test is most effective (so I read earlier in the thread and I know nothing about the topic apart from what I've read in this thread). So that means the in utero tests are less effective. I. This case the inutero tests were wrong so now they can figure out WHY and hopefully improve the accuracy of the tests to avoid this happening again.

There have been a few posts assuming that the in utero tests were messed up. It's completely possible that the in utero test is just less accurate and everyone followed the correct procedure and came to the conclusion the test led them to.

mvl

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

I would have thought this case proves the merit of testing after termination. The post termination test is most effective (so I read earlier in the thread and I know nothing about the topic apart from what I've read in this thread). So that means the in utero tests are less effective. I. This case the inutero tests were wrong so now they can figure out WHY and hopefully improve the accuracy of the tests to avoid this happening again.

There have been a few posts assuming that the in utero tests were messed up. It's completely possible that the in utero test is just less accurate and everyone followed the correct procedure and came to the conclusion the test led them to.

What do you mean by in utero tests: CVS or amniocentesis ?
For this case, can it be that only CVS was run ? or has amniocentesis also been done as part of the investigations ?
- difference between them being (from original article): CVS is with placental cells while amniocentesis is carried out directly on the foetus; they may show different readings.
From process point of view, if there is a better test out there - should the hospital authorize such a termination (post 12 weeks) until all the tests are concluded ?
- not getting why professor Malone was suggesting some patients decide not to wait two weeks for the second CVS - did they not run amniocentesis at all, if so, does anyone know why ...

markodaly

LorelaiG wrote: »

Considering that there is no time restriction for time on a termination for FFA they (whoever 'they' are... the doctors, the parents) they really jumped the gun by not waiting on diagnostic test results to come back rather than relying on screening tests.

This is the key point I think.

The option to terminate expires after 12 weeks unless you have a FFA. But there should be safeguards in place to make that a FFA exists in the first place.

The couple and the doctors jumped the gun here. I am not sure of what test they did or didn't do, but its pretty clear they went with a scan/blood test that are not as accurate as other tests one can do down the road.
Normally if something odd is detected in the first test, further tests are done and highly highly recommended.

I wonder if the couple was pressured into making a quick choice, once the results of the first test came to be known?

Regardless, someone is now dead because someone jumped the gun and ****ed up.

markodaly

As an aside, I think we can forget about all the theoretical nice and lovely debates we had in TV studios last year. We have all the experts tell us about all the safeguards and what not.

But in the real world where abortions are carried out, they have to go into the HSE system. The same system that can't even screen for cervical cancer correctly. So how on earth can people expect that innocent people are not killed in this new regime?

This is just the new normal now. Messy isn't it!

markodaly

Blueshoe wrote: »

It's not really a baby though. Didn't come out kicking and screaming

Stay classy!

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Absolutely, but strangely that wasn't the attitude when medical misadventure (the inquest jury's verdict) led to Savita being diagnosed with sepsis too late. Nope, then it was a case of:

Not odd at all because then we were able to look at our laws and see they were benefiting no one and the over all benefit would be to change them.

Single cases are not reasons to change a law. But they are reasons to EVALUATE it and ask the right questions. The questions were asked, the public voted and spoke, and you and your emotive rhetoric lost. Get over it. You lost for good reason. You had no argument supporting the continues curtailing of abortion options in our country higher than "oh look it has a tongue!".

The issue in the story you quote is not one of fallibility either, like the story this thread is about it. The issue then was the choices and options of the woman and her doctors being curtailed for no good reason at all. Certainly no good reason YOU have ever managed to argue for. And that is a different thing entirely. A difference you would do well to learn.

When a bad event happens, even a rare one, we have to ask questions. And the answer to those questions is important. We asked questions about abortion in Ireland and the answer MOST of us gave is the right one.

We should ask questions about THIS rare event too, and the answers should inform us how to minimise similar events in the future. What YOU probably think the answers should be is also likely easy to predict. As would be your inability to defend them again.

stefanovich

I feel sorry for the child that could have been.

This is the consequence of relaxed abortion laws. Many other viable pregnancies are being terminated without the need for dodgy test results. Don't know what makes this different. Is it because they are seen to have acted in good faith?

I'd like to see the detail around this case. How was termination even considered? Was it recommended?

nozzferrahhtoo

stefanovich wrote: »

I feel sorry for the child that could have been.

This is the consequence of relaxed abortion laws. Many other viable pregnancies are being terminated without the need for dodgy test results. Don't know what makes this different.

What makes it different is that many of us retain our moral and ethical concerns for ACTUAL sentient agents. Not potential ones that never happened like you do.

And in THIS case the ACTUAL sentient agents wanted a child and they terminated a pregnancy on what in retrospect turned out to be bad data. So they are suffering and they have out empathy.

That you have empathy for things with n o basis for it does not cloud the difference between this case, and cases where people terminate pregnancies and have not suffered at all because they are content they made the right choice for the right reasons.

Shop40

SusieBlue wrote: »

You clearly don’t understand the concept of hindsight whatsoever.
/quote]

Can you stop having a go at people! Just because they mightn’t agree with you, don’t insult please! We are ALL entitled to our opinions on this thread.

stefanovich

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not potential ones that never happened like you do.

It did happen. Then it was killed.

Mrsmum

For me, if I understand this story correctly, the shocking thing was the haste. It's disgusting, to me, whoever decided it, that 7 more days couldn't be waited for until the other conclusive test came back. Yes of course it's devastating to get the news from the first test but you know parents of born children get devastating news all the time and there is no out. Seven lousy days couldn't even be borne here. No one is disputing the trauma for any parents in this position but, imo, to want to be or to be a parent is to accept the possibility that you will suffer on account of your children and that your world can be turned upside in the blink of an eye. For doctors or parents to decide that feelings of parents (as in they can't bear it) while waiting for a test trumps the baby in the womb just sits wrong with me. Abortion is major, at least make sure there is no hope whatsoever before rushing to abort. Here the doctors definitely knew another test was on it's way back. Why bother to do two test if the second doesn't matter. In reality doctors must know the second test is more important.To allow an abortion before this is criminal imo. And I don't know what the parents knew but if they also knew in another seven days the other test would be back but couldn't bear to wait, I'm afraid, in that case, I don't admire their position. Because it is completely different to what parents of a born child would do. And I wonder how much the new reality that that which is in the womb is disposable feeds into all this.

recedite

amcalester wrote: »

Not in Ireland.

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Medical students do not take take the Hippocratic oath in Ireland.

DubInMeath wrote: »

Irish doctors don't take the Hippocratic Oath Charlie.

Maybe they should.

stefanovich

Mrsmum wrote: »

For me, if I understand this story correctly, the shocking thing was the haste. It's disgusting, to me, whoever decided it, that 7 more days couldn't be waited for until the other conclusive test came back. Yes of course it's devastating to get the news from the first test but you know parents of born children get devastating news all the time and there is no out. Seven lousy days couldn't even be borne here. No one is disputing the trauma for any parents in this position but, imo, to want to be or to be a parent is to accept the possibility that you will suffer on account of your children and that your world can be turned upside in the blink of an eye. For doctors or parents to decide that feelings of parents (as in they can't bear it) while waiting for a test trumps the baby in the womb just sits wrong with me. Abortion is major, at least make sure there is no hope whatsoever before rushing to abort. Here the doctors definitely knew another test was on it's way back. Why bother to do two test if the second doesn't matter. In reality doctors must know the second test is more important.To allow an abortion before this is criminal imo. And I don't know what the parents knew but if they also knew in another seven days the other test would be back but couldn't bear to wait, I'm afraid, in that case, I don't admire their position. Because it is completely different to what parents of a born child would do. And I wonder how much the new reality that that which is in the womb is disposable feeds into all this.

Well I thought you can have an abortion on a whim now anyway. The parents were obviously looking to avoid hassle and now they are looking to play the victim.

Only victim here is the poor child who was involuntary euthanised.

pjohnson

stefanovich wrote: »

Well I thought you can have an abortion on a whim now anyway. The parents were obviously looking to avoid hassle and now they are looking to play the victim.

Only victim here is the poor child who was involuntary euthanised.

Wow I wish I could feel suprised.

Sittingpretty

Mrsmum wrote: »

For me, if I understand this story correctly, the shocking thing was the haste. It's disgusting, to me, whoever decided it, that 7 more days couldn't be waited for until the other conclusive test came back. Yes of course it's devastating to get the news from the first test but you know parents of born children get devastating news all the time and there is no out. Seven lousy days couldn't even be borne here. No one is disputing the trauma for any parents in this position but, imo, to want to be or to be a parent is to accept the possibility that you will suffer on account of your children and that your world can be turned upside in the blink of an eye. For doctors or parents to decide that feelings of parents (as in they can't bear it) while waiting for a test trumps the baby in the womb just sits wrong with me. Abortion is major, at least make sure there is no hope whatsoever before rushing to abort. Here the doctors definitely knew another test was on it's way back. Why bother to do two test if the second doesn't matter. In reality doctors must know the second test is more important.To allow an abortion before this is criminal imo. And I don't know what the parents knew but if they also knew in another seven days the other test would be back but couldn't bear to wait, I'm afraid, in that case, I don't admire their position. Because it is completely different to what parents of a born child would do. And I wonder how much the new reality that that which is in the womb is disposable feeds into all this.

I think the time frame was 2 weeks and the percentage of the first test being incorrect was less than 1%. Many countries don’t even perform the 2nd part of the test the 1st is deemed so conclusive.

Though I do agree with you, it does seem to be over and done with very very quickly but I can maybe understand that too because everyone is different and reacts differently. Like you I think I would have held out even if there was the tiniest chance it was wrong.

It’s just so very awful and if it were me I’d never get over it.

shesty

I think it was more to do with the haste of today's society.The fact that we make decisions all the time in haste, the fact that we make snap analysis based on headlines, instagram photos, twitter posts.Weare not prepared to give anything time anymore.28 pages of a thread based on incomplete information is a plain example of that.The story started circulating yesterday and it could be inferred that the medical staff were wrong.Now there is more information there and it appears that it is a terribly terribly sad story, possibly one where this outcome could not have been foreseen.The Maater of the Rotunda said yesterday that generally if this test is done first time but with a clear ultrasound, they usually recommend waiting for the second result before making a decision.....and it looks like the ultrasound was clear gere, but they didn't wait.Either by their own choice or because they were never informed.

I honestly think the finger cannot be pointed here.A private clinic did the tests.They were dealing with Holles St, not the clinic.A lab would have analysed the results elsewhere.Who tdo you blame?The clinic for doing it's job?A doctor for delivering the test result?A couple for making the hardest decision of their lives and then worse, finding out that it was not the right decision?They have to live with that decision for the rest of their lives.None of the people sitting pointing fingers and saying "I told you so" are affected by this.They are.It is the saddest story and I only hope it will better inform processes in hospitals in informing people of their choices-and I am only assuming they weren't fully informed.My heart goes out to them.