cournioni wrote: » So we keep hearing. Doesn’t make it right.
cournioni wrote: » Doesn’t matter a toss if it’s a woman or a man. Killing shouldn’t be a choice, regardless of its location.
cournioni wrote: » Taking another persons life should never be an acceptable choice.
cournioni wrote: » I’d rather everyone be give the chance at having their voice heard, at least once.
lazygal wrote: » I'm very confused by this case. Last year I had NIPT done on the advice of my consultant in Holles Street. This consisted of a very detailed scan and bloodtest done at 12 weeks approx. The following week I got a call from my consultant advising there was a high risk result for trisomy 18. High risk for this test is anything over 1%-in my case the risk was classed as 11%. She then advised amniocentesis at 16 weeks, for diagnostic purposes and to reduce the risk of miscarriage. I agreed to proceed and had this testing done, along with another very detailed scan. The initial results tested for t13, t18 and t21. These came back within a week and thankfully all were clear. Then there was a wait of another week for the full set of results for all chromosones and again thankfully this was also clear. I can't understand how a decision to terminate was made without waiting for all test results. When I was having all these tests the focus was on getting as much information as possible in order to make an informed decision. CVS can be done earlier but it isn't conclusive, amniocentesis is. There must be a full review of this case but this case should not be used to deny choices to anyone else.
AulWan wrote: » lazygal wrote: » I'm very confused by this case. Last year I had NIPT done on the advice of my consultant in Holles Street. This consisted of a very detailed scan and bloodtest done at 12 weeks approx. The following week I got a call from my consultant advising there was a high risk result for trisomy 18. High risk for this test is anything over 1%-in my case the risk was classed as 11%. She then advised amniocentesis at 16 weeks, for diagnostic purposes and to reduce the risk of miscarriage. I agreed to proceed and had this testing done, along with another very detailed scan. The initial results tested for t13, t18 and t21. These came back within a week and thankfully all were clear. Then there was a wait of another week for the full set of results for all chromosones and again thankfully this was also clear. I can't understand how a decision to terminate was made without waiting for all test results. When I was having all these tests the focus was on getting as much information as possible in order to make an informed decision. CVS can be done earlier but it isn't conclusive, amniocentesis is. There must be a full review of this case but this case should not be used to deny choices to anyone else. So correct me if I'm wrong, but the timeline from the first test to getting a 100% conclusive result that all was okay took about five to six weeks? Bringing you up to nearly 17/18 weeks pregnant?
lazygal wrote: » Yes, about 5-6 weeks altogether. I was nearly 18 weeks when we got the results of the full screen. Meant to say these tests aren't processed in Ireland. Some went to the USA and others went to Scotland for analysis. So there'd be a couple of days delay in sending samples.
Call me Al wrote: » I'm confused too. I expected maternity hospitals to have formal procedures in instances like this, just as you describe above. Obviously any parents have the right to terminate a pregnancy in accordance with current legislation, but otherwise that rushed decisions would not be taken in the absence of all test results being reviewed and discussed thoroughly. I mean why do the test in the first place if not for further information in making serious decisions?.Reading this morning's Irish Times the couple in question claim they were told by the relevant medical staff that it was essentially pointless to wait for the second set of results, in spite of the couple expressing their own concerns as to the chance of error with sample 1.
AulWan wrote: » lazygal wrote: » Yes, about 5-6 weeks altogether. I was nearly 18 weeks when we got the results of the full screen. Meant to say these tests aren't processed in Ireland. Some went to the USA and others went to Scotland for analysis. So there'd be a couple of days delay in sending samples. Thats a long time to not know. In those circumstances, I can fully understand why a couple might decide to act on the results of the CVS, without putting themselves through waiting another couple of weeks on the 0.15% off chance (or whatever it is) that the CVS was wrong. In their shoes, I honestly think I would have made the same decision.
AulWan wrote: » Thats a long time to not know. In those circumstances, I can fully understand why a couple might decide to act on the results of the CVS, without putting themselves through waiting another couple of weeks on the 0.15% off chance (or whatever it is) that the CVS was wrong. In their shoes, I honestly think I would have made the same decision.
lazygal wrote: » But then why complain that the final test was a different result? If they proceeded knowing the test was not conclusive I struggle to see what they hope to achieve. You're told these tests are not 100 % conclusive apart from amniocentesis.
mvl wrote: » can you link the article you're refering to ?what I read yesterday on this article, the tragedy was not only being told not to wait for second set of results, but how they were also advised there is no need for a different test they asked for (=amniocentesis). so imo, this thread should not be really about the debate pro-choice/pro-life, when the root cause is what is happening under the HSE umbrella.
mvl wrote: » But have you been in a similar situation yourself ? I have, in a way. So my experience is that when parents want a baby, they would wait as much as it is needed, spend as much money as they can for other tests, hoping to be told that the baby is OK. - currently I am inclined to think these parents were not provided with all support required from medical staff, until more information about the investigation will be revealed. PS: I would be pro-choice on the general debate.
Mrsmum wrote: » "The Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 allows for a termination: under section 11, where two medical practitioners are of the opinion formed in good faith that 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; What does an opinion formed in good faith actually mean ? Sounds a bit wishy-washy, casual or open to interpretation to me. Surely there should be diagnostic solid rules as regards what informs that good faith opinion or tighter wording in the legislation for the protection of both the doctors and the parents and not forgetting the baby because as everyone says, ffa babies are wanted babies. I remember hearing Peter Boylan or someone at the time of the Repeal vote saying doctors needed to repeal in order to properly look after their patients. This woman was a patient and it doesn't sound like she thinks she was properly looked after. Far from it, she lost a healthy baby due to their 'good faith opinion'. And she is likely to sue the very doctors who presumably thought they were acting in 'good faith'. In practice going forward I guess every test will be insisted on by doctors or get parents to sign a waiver or something.
Sittingpretty wrote: » I can’t be the only one who is absolutely mystified that doctors could have advised the termination course of action without ALL the results to hand? In this litigious society? Obviously they may have thought they were correct but would they not have waited and advised caution until the actual conclusive 100% sure results were in. It just doesn’t make any sense.
volchitsa wrote: » "In good faith" is at least as clear as "beyond reasonable doubt". They had a result that had less than 0.2% of being wrong, so 99.8% of being right, in theory. Remember that the doctor in Galway believed that she couldn't act until the odds of Savita dying were greater than 50% - and that we were told that there is no way to identify that dividing line at all, so that an "in good faith" might actually have saved Savita's life. This is not a comment on this particular terrible incident, just pointing out that it's not necessarily a matter of simply finding a more precise phrase or a number that will prevent any future error. The old saying is that medicine is an art, not a science, and there is a lot to that, even today. Demanding evidence that the advice was given "in good faith" is probably better than artificially setting a number. Anyway, 99.8% would probably sound fine to most people, but when it turns out that waiting another two weeks gives an actual result, not a theoretical one, then we're entitled to wonder whether it really was in good faith, if the couple were not given all the information.
volchitsa wrote: » Yes it does seem strange, but I would be very careful not to accuse the couple of having got this wrong without solid evidence. Because it doesn't make any more sense that a couple getting such a terrible diagnosis would have acted earlier than they were advised to, despite knowing that all the results were not yet in. Something clearly went badly wrong, but AFAICT we don't yet know exactly why, nor who was at fault.
Sittingpretty wrote: » Ultimately though a very sad outcome however it was arrived at.
vriesmays wrote: » Why didn't you vote no to avoid this sad outcome.
SusieBlue wrote: » This outcome could still have occurred had a No vote won. Abortions were happening, just in secret and abroad.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » I'm not rehashing the abortion debate FFS. I said clearly there's no point rehashing the abortion debate as a 100 previous posters were doing. Your post is completely contradictory. You say there is no issue in law signing off with 99.9% accuracy and yet you question how the information was explained to the couple and the exclusion of vital information about margin of error. The takeaway is the particular test is not reliable by itself and the medical professionals should have waited for the 3rd test.
Candamir wrote: » Waiting for amniocentesis, and the definitive results could take a significant amount of extra time, also maybe time for the woman to make a decision perhaps bringing a pregnancy up to 19/20 weeks or so. It’s possible then that where a surgical abortion would have been an option, at the later stage an induction of labour might be needed to terminate the pregnancy. I can absolutely understand why a woman might prefer to proceed on a greater than 99.9% certainty rather than have to go through labour to deliver a dead baby. The notion of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in a medical scenario is ridiculous and unworkable. Doctors would be paralysed if that degree of certainty was required in day to day practice. The Cross judgment would only be in the half place compared to it.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » No more nonsense about aborting based on early test results. Wait for the amniocentesis.
ToBeFrank123 wrote: » It took a number of weeks for definitive results, not months. As many have said, lets hope we learn from this. No more nonsense about aborting based on early test results. Wait for the amniocentesis. Only militant pro-abortionists would not wait for an amniocentesis.
As a society we agreed human life begins in the womb at 12 weeks
AulWan wrote: » CVS tests can be carried out as early as ten weeks. Making abortion for FFA dependant on a positive result from amniocentesis (which can only be done at 16 weeks) will only push women into testing as early as possible, so if there is a 98.5% positive, they can avail of the 12 week limit. .
Candamir wrote: » I don’t remember society agreeing on this.
Candamir wrote: » They didn’t have an amniocentesis- I’m referring to the wait time to have amino and to get the results. An abortion at that stage would likely be by induced labour. Amniocentesis also has a 1% miscarriage rate, as well as potential other complications, so opting for an amino over CVS, the risk of miscarriage is greater than the risk of a false positive. Its a decision for each woman/couple to make
