petalgumdrops wrote: » This came up during the referendum and until a test case is brought to the supreme court I believe we will not have a full understanding of the impact that the removal of constitutional protection has on the 8th. We have many rights that are guaranteed in the constitution, free speech, right to own property etc etc we have repealed the only right the unborn had and so until this is tested the outcome is not fully known.
Nobelium wrote: » Then why do you claim to be the spokesperson for our society ?
petalgumdrops wrote: » Every professional has a duty of care as do doctors. When mistakes are made by doctors there are greater repercussions as it can literally be life/death. Doctors don't go around trying to give substandard care, don't confuse my point. The system in which they are working is so overstrected that mistakes have and will be made. I may be lucky and it won't affect me but you can guarantee that we will hear more of these stories and I would put my house on that. I am protected from malpractice as I have constitutional protection that guarantees my rights. The unborn..... not so clear!
Hannibal_Smith wrote: » Im replying to the poster on a point they made about whether the 8th still being in place would have had an effect here. People respond to posters on points that pique their interest all the time. All I remarked on was that they are making this case about them. I don't recall ever having an argument with the poster a year ago?
Hannibal_Smith wrote: » Are you replying to the correct post? I have no sense of self righteous indignation and I know the poster from the previous thread. I never denied the other poster their opinion... I am expressing my disagreement with it. If you have a problem with my post.. Report it.
petalgumdrops wrote: » I remember many exchanges with you during the campaign about my story and all i'm going to say is that the concerns of I and many others who suffered a misdiagnosis were not listened to. Our stories showed that these results can be flawed as testified by so many women but these would have compromised repeal and so it really is no wonder when all parties are not afforded a voice to express concerns that issues would arisearise. My story was pulled apart by many people currently on this thread- those same people thankfully have the sense not to engage with me now. Perhaps they know I had a point, a valid contribution they should have listened to. In incidents such as these its not nice to be right!
petalgumdrops wrote: » Again you need to focus on the babies like the baby in this case that was wanted. Unwanted babies that will be terminated anyway don't require constitutional protection I.e up to 12 weeks gestation. Those over should be afforded protection with allowance for FFA. Repeal has affected wanted and unwanted babies by indiscriminately removing the right to life of all babies. Those that are wanted and those that are not. Lets see how far this family get with a legal case? I've read they are speaking with solicitors!
uptherebels wrote: » I never claimed to be anything of the sort. Highlighting that our society sees two situations as different which is reflected by our mentality to, and laws regarding each is not being a spokesperson.
nullzero wrote: » You stated that you knew the poster from a previous thread,it had been implied by them that it was the referendum thread from last year. Stating that they were making this case about them forms the crux of what I took issue with. Looking at their posts objectively, they weren't doing that, they were offering their own personal experience that was relevant to the discussion at hand (which most of us here don't have) which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
DubInMeath wrote: » You and a number of pro life posters were saying before the referendum that maternity care in Ireland was of a higher standard than the UK because of the 8th, now suddenly it isn't because of the repeal of the 8th. As a question do you feel that your doctors are not looking after you given the slightly increased risks a person over 40 may face in their pregnancy?
petalgumdrops wrote: » You also belitted and played down my experience on the other thread. You didn't jump in compassionately when the validity of my account was being questioned or poked at. I clearly stated that this could happen again and that's why I was telling my story so that people knew mistakes can and do happen. The only feedback rather than trying to learn from my experience or gain an insight into those who had reservations was "isn't it great for you that you had the choice" nobody was gonna force you to have a termination. I'm going to let you own your own opinions on the matter but it was an experience!
petalgumdrops wrote: » Pro life? Are you suggesting I'm pro life? I do not hold an absolutist view on termination but I struggle massively with the removal of the right to life and the potential for mistakes to happen. I do believe on statistics we did have the best if not one of the best maternal records? This was in respose in yes campaign stating that it was the 8th that was killing women. It didn't kill Malik thawley, nora hyland or the two women that died this year. The hyperbole in relation to woman being killed under the 8th was what I was trying to address. My doctors are looking after me great thanks. The system is stretched, under resourced, under funded, under staffed etc but We never think something will go wrong do we?. Maybe my previous experience makes me subconsciously anxious to something happening and I am scared sometimes. 2 women have died this year in.maternity hospitals this year! I'm just lucky that I have no issues that make me high risk (for now) but if a mistake is made with my baby (touch wood it doesn't) then I'm not confident of my right to redress! This family that have lost their baby - while they exercised their choice I can't see how procedure was followed. 3 doctors telling her a CVS was conclusive? If they can't get interpretation and knowing the limitations of the diagnostic testing they use then I didn't hold out much hope for gold standard maternity care now! Also I'm 32 not 40 but definitely feeling a bit older!!!
uptherebels wrote: » Except this wanted baby was misdiagnosed with a FFA. So your allowance for FFA wouldn't have helped. Wanted babies won't get aborted unless there is a belief or misbelief of a serious problem. So I don't really see how you can legislate for only wanted babies.
DubInMeath wrote: » 32 but in another thread about 7 or so years ago you said you were 36?
petalgumdrops wrote: » Hang on and I'll get u my pps number too!!!!!
DubInMeath wrote: » No need. Just wondering about the stated age difference given the slightly increased risks and suddenly apparently Irish maternity care has gone downhill since repeal apparently.
petalgumdrops wrote: » Do u not think that 3 nurses looking after 30+ patients on the day a woman and a baby died is indicative of a drop in standards? Do u think that constitutes good maternity care. The 8th wasn't responsibile? Do you think it inspires confidence in women that will access maternity care in Ireland? Savita case was used as a means to promote a fear of being pregnant in irisg hospitals and I think these deaths point to an overall maternity system that is in need of overhaul. We were promised that repeal would also mean greater rights to consent in maternity care. Aims etc have gone quiet on this though as they know the consent issue to intervention is often due to a hospitals active management of labour policy. Joe duffy did a good radio interview show of women this year who had horror stories from maternity hospitals in Ireland. Horror stories that came from a post repeal maternity service.
SusieBlue wrote: » I hope you aren’t referring to the tragic situation that happened in CUMH recently in the above post. What happened that woman and baby had absolutely nothing to do with Repeal, abortion, or staffing. It was a freak accident.
petalgumdrops wrote: It is in response to a the standard of maternity care in Ireland!
petalgumdrops wrote: » It is in response to a the standard of maternity care in Ireland!!!!
petalgumdrops wrote: » Do u not think that 3 nurses looking after 30+ patients and their newborns on the day a woman and a baby died is indicative of a drop in standards? Do u think that constitutes good maternity care. The 8th wasn't responsibile? Do you think it inspires confidence in women that will access maternity care in Ireland? Savita case was used as a means to promote a fear of being pregnant in irisg hospitals and I think these deaths point to an overall maternity system that is in need of overhaul. We were promised that repeal would also mean greater rights to consent in maternity care. Aims etc have gone quiet on this though as they know the consent issue to intervention is often due to a hospitals active management of labour policy. Joe duffy did a good radio interview show of women this year who had horror stories from maternity hospitals in Ireland. Horror stories that came from a post repeal maternity service.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » So if standards are so bad, which country will you be going to for maternity care?
jeremyj1968 wrote: » On a completely unrelated topic, wasn't it great that the Eighth was repealed.
pinkyeye wrote: » Sorry now, I have remained quiet up to now out of respect to you and your previous situation but quoting Joe Duffy and claiming those stories were post repeal is COMPLETE AND UTTER BS. Those stories went as back as far as 1980 and in fact the most recent one I hear was pre repeal so that is a total LIE. And I listened to them all. And also using the recent tragic situation in CUMH is disgusting. What on earth did that have to with repeal??? Seems to me as if you're just enjoying a "told you so" moment in an utterly disgusting manner.
petalgumdrops wrote: Do u not think that 3 nurses looking after 30+ patients and their newborns on the day a woman and a baby died is indicative of a drop in standards? Do u think that constitutes good maternity care. The 8th wasn't responsibile? Do you think it inspires confidence in women that will access maternity care in Ireland? Savita case was used as a means to promote a fear of being pregnant in irisg hospitals and I think these deaths point to an overall maternity system that is in need of overhaul. We were promised that repeal would also mean greater rights to consent in maternity care. Aims etc have gone quiet on this though as they know the consent issue to intervention is often due to a hospitals active management of labour policy. Joe duffy did a good radio interview show of women this year who had horror stories from maternity hospitals in Ireland. Horror stories that came from a post repeal maternity service.
petalgumdrops wrote: I often wondered that during the repeal campaign too. So dangerous to have a baby but still many yes voters had babies in this country which I'll also do like I did with my other kids!
petalgumdrops wrote: » There was a couple of days of stories of which many stories were from this year and the end of 2018. You can search online for them. I must check out the others. I'll ignore your "told u so" remark!
Plumbthedepths wrote: » Strange that you are happy to engage with maternity services here in light of your comment, plus a few claims you made.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
