Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

lazygal · 20-05-2019 12:52pm

I preferred to wait for a conclusive result.
I'm vehemently pro choice. I'm pretty sure if the news hadn't been good I would have continued the pregnancy even if termination had been an option here. Thankfully we didn't need to make that choice.

Mrsmum · 20-05-2019 1:19pm

"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.

Call me Al · 20-05-2019 1:20pm

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.

I think it may be the article I read.

I'm unsure, since you refer to it above, if you have the impression that I am debating pro-choice v pro-life? I'm not.
I'm simply wondering if there is standard best practice in our maternity hospitals for cases such as this. There should be. I'm hoping this case didnt transpire as the couple in question claim it did, but if it did then it's terrible. But questions do need to be asked.

AulWan · 20-05-2019 1:20pm

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.

Not this exact situation, no, but I have been in the situation where I was told that prescribed medication I was on before I found out I was pregnant could have affected my baby but there was no way to know for sure until after the baby was born. There were no tests, and abortion was not an option. (This was back in the eighties). I spent the next few weeks terrified of what I could be facing until I eventually miscarried at 13 weeks.

ToBeFrank123 · 20-05-2019 2:07pm

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.

I think good faith needs to be changed to beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise we risk a repeat. Sounds like the medical establishment are trying to cover themselves from litigation with "good faith". If a surgeon made a major mistake during an operation for example, leading to the death of their patient, they could say, "not my fault, I operated in good faith".

Like you rightly said, good faith is a bit wishy-washy.

volchitsa · 20-05-2019 2:59pm

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.

"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.

Sittingpretty · 20-05-2019 3:02pm

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 · 20-05-2019 3:06pm

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.

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.

ToBeFrank123 · 20-05-2019 3:12pm

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.

It doesn't at all, not even close. To act in good faith is open to interpretation and subjectivity and leaves room for doubt and a margin of error which is what happened here.

Beyond reasonable doubt means you have exhausted all possible avenues and there's nothing left to try. This is not what happened here. They chose not to wait for the results of the final test which was the most accurate and conclusive. So there was always a doubt involved.

I hope we learn from this tragedy, that is wait until ALL the test results are back before deciding.

Sittingpretty · 20-05-2019 3:30pm

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.

Agree completely, it’s all very strange and I suppose it’s best not to speculate without knowing the actual facts and/or the timeline.

Ultimately though a very sad outcome however it was arrived at.

vriesmays · 20-05-2019 4:13pm

Sittingpretty wrote: »

Ultimately though a very sad outcome however it was arrived at.

Why didn't you vote no to avoid this sad outcome.

SusieBlue · 20-05-2019 4:16pm

vriesmays wrote: »

Why didn't you vote no to avoid this sad outcome.

This outcome could still have occurred had a No vote won. Abortions were happening, just in secret and abroad.

Igotadose · 20-05-2019 4:34pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

This outcome could still have occurred had a No vote won. Abortions were happening, just in secret and abroad.

For all we know, this outcome has already happened in Ireland when the eighth was in effect.

Candamir · 20-05-2019 5:37pm

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.

Cool your jets there! I’m not referring to you exclusively regarding the rehashing of the abortion debate.

My post is not contradictory at all. Almost every clinical intervention is made without 100% certainty (as to diagnosis, outcome of treatment etc), this is fine do long as the patient understands the risks etc. The test in this case is over 99.9% reliable, and proceeding on the basis of that degree of certainty is absolutely not a problem, even if another more accurate test is available. The issue is whether the couple had this explained to them properly.

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.

suicide_circus · 20-05-2019 5:53pm

the cervical cancer payouts are going to bite us in the ass

ToBeFrank123 · 20-05-2019 9:53pm

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.

It took a number of weeks for definitive results, not months. They could have waited and by they I mean the medical professionals.

Lets call a spade a spade. The medical professionals messed up. There's no two ways about it, no other way to dress it up or put a spin on it.

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.

If this error happened once, it can happen again. A healthy human being was terminated, pretty disgraceful. No amount of moving the goalposts or arguing over when life begins changes that. As a society we agreed human life begins in the womb at 12 weeks and aborting after that is illegal except in limited circumstances where there is a threat to the life of the mother or child. Except in this case, the unborn child was neither.

I can see the parents suing and being rightly entitled to compensation. They depended on medical advice and were badly let down.

AulWan · 20-05-2019 10:49pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

No more nonsense about aborting based on early test results. Wait for the amniocentesis.

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 · 20-05-2019 11:27pm

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.

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.

As a society we agreed human life begins in the womb at 12 weeks

I don’t remember society agreeing on this.

ToBeFrank123 · 21-05-2019 8:45am

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.

.

If they do that, the have no sympathy because they are risking aborting a perfectly healthy baby as we have seen in the recent Holles Street case.

If nothing else its idiotic to abort without as many results as possible. In Ireland you can abort an unborn with FFA at any stage. So why the rush? Many couples spend thousands if not tens of thousands trying to conceive if they go down the IVF route. Waiting a couple more weeks for definitive results is worthwhile. I'm not sure of the full details in this case regards how long they were trying, all I heard is it was a long awaited pregnancy. Now unfortunately they are back to square one. They would not however have the medical expertise to decide if it was worth waiting for amniocentesis. For that they depended on medical advice and opinion.

ToBeFrank123 · 21-05-2019 8:50am

Candamir wrote: »

I don’t remember society agreeing on this.

It was called a referendum, you may have missed it. Aborting a healthy unborn after 12 weeks except in limited circumstances is illegal. In other words you cannot just terminate a healthy unborn after 12 weeks. That's what the majority voted for and agreed.

People have their own subjective opinions on when life begins and when healthy unborn should be protected, but as a society we agreed in the referendum they should be protected from 12 weeks onwards.

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

Aborting rather than risk a 1% miscarriage rate due to Amniocentesis? That's great logic.

nozzferrahhtoo · 21-05-2019 9:55am

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

In Ireland you can abort an unborn with FFA at any stage. So why the rush?

That is a very general question about a whole rainbow of situations that a couple or a woman could be in, so I doubt you can get one single coherent answer to it.

However there are general answers one could give to a general question such as that.

For example there are genuine psychological issues with continuing to harbour a pregnancy that is believed to be going nowhere. Up to and including a person becoming more and more emotionally invested in it as time goes on, the options of medical or surgical abortion being more limited later in the pregnancy, or complications in the pregnancy going awry causing further medical issues for the woman, and simply dealing with the grief of the failed pregnancy in a timely manner and so just wanting it to be over with as soon as possible rather than endure it for weeks more before healing can begin.

Further though if you look at graphs of complications, even death, that occur as a result of abortion there is one clear trend. The quantity AND severity of potential complications, even death, goes up as the pregnancy progresses. Even from 2% at eight to twelve weeks it can jump 300% to 6% at twelve to thirteen weeks. And in the second trimester it can go up to 50%.

In the United States, mortality rates per 100,000 abortions are as follows: fewer than 8 weeks - 0.5%; 11-12 weeks - 2%; 16-20 weeks - 14%; and more than 21 weeks - 18%. Though thankfully in the United States, mortality from septic abortion rapidly declined after the legalization of abortions

"Curiously, one study reports that women aged 30–39 years were more likely to have a complication after an abortion compared with women ages 20–24 years" so seemingly the older you are the more you might feel compelled to have an abortion sooner rather than later.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

as a society we agreed in the referendum they should be protected from 12 weeks onwards.

Nope not accurate. As a society we agreed by referendum to remove the 8th from the constitution. That is all. No more. No less.

The "12 weeks" stuff is legislation after the referendum and was not at all voted on by us in any way other than we voted for the elective representatives that worked on that legislation.

"This replaced the Eighth Amendment, which had given the life of the unborn foetus the same value as that of its mother, with a clause permitting the Oireachtas to legislate for the termination of pregnancies."

Now we COULD claim that we knew what we were getting so essentially that was what we were voting for even if it was not ACTUALLY what we were voting for. But that would not be accurate as I know plenty of people who did not agree with the proposed legislation and STILL voted to remove the 8th because they believed removal of the 8th the right thing to do and fighting the legislation issue a separate battle.

ToBeFrank123 · 21-05-2019 10:29am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope not accurate. As a society we agreed by referendum to remove the 8th from the constitution. That is all. No more. No less.

The "12 weeks" stuff is legislation after the referendum and was not at all voted on by us in any way other than we voted for the elective representatives that worked on that legislation.

"This replaced the Eighth Amendment, which had given the life of the unborn foetus the same value as that of its mother, with a clause permitting the Oireachtas to legislate for the termination of pregnancies."

Now we COULD claim that we knew what we were getting so essentially that was what we were voting for even if it was not ACTUALLY what we were voting for. But that would not be accurate as I know plenty of people who did not agree with the proposed legislation and STILL voted to remove the 8th because they believed removal of the 8th the right thing to do and fighting the legislation issue a separate battle.

The 12 week limit was well flagged prior to the referendum. That was what the Citizens Assembly proposed and the politicians from all major political parties accepted. So 12 weeks was always going to be the limit and was well advertised before, during and after the referendum. It was never going to be anything but 12 weeks.

nozzferrahhtoo · 21-05-2019 10:31am

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The 12 week limit was well flagged prior to the referendum. That was what the Citizens Assembly proposed and the politicians from all major political parties accepted. So 12 weeks was always going to be the limit and was well advertised before, during and after the referendum.

I already pre-empted this reply in my last paragraph but since you decided to make it anyway I will just repeat my answer which is simply that:

While we might have known what we were likely to get in the legislation were we to repeal the 8th, it is still majorly inaccurate to claim that is what we actually voted on. It is not, was not, and never will be what we were asked to vote on.

Further to insist on making that error papers over the very real concerns of the very real subsection of people who A) Voted to repeal and

disagree with the legislation that was proposed.

gctest50 · 21-05-2019 10:35am

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

The 12 week limit was well flagged prior to the referendum. That was what the Citizens Assembly proposed and the politicians from all major political parties accepted. So 12 weeks was always going to be the limit and was well advertised before, during and after the referendum. It was never going to be anything but 12 weeks.

This probably would not have happened if the limit here was 20 /24 weeks

AulWan · 21-05-2019 10:38am

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

If they do that, the have no sympathy because they are risking aborting a perfectly healthy baby

I wouldn't expect any, not from those who have shown yet again that their only consideration in this scenario is for the fetus.

ToBeFrank123 · 21-05-2019 10:56am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I already pre-empted this reply in my last paragraph but since you decided to make it anyway I will just repeat my answer which is simply that:

While we might have known what we were likely to get in the legislation were we to repeal the 8th, it is still majorly inaccurate to claim that is what we actually voted on. It is not, was not, and never will be what we were asked to vote on.

Further to insist on making that error papers over the very real concerns of the very real subsection of people who A) Voted to repeal and disagree with the legislation that was proposed.

I don't like hair splitting as much as the next person, but..
The 12 week limit was what was agreed by:
1. The Citizens Assembly which was a microcosm of Irish Society (not possible to put everyone in Ireland into the one room).
2. Received the backing of the majority in a referendum. People voted for or against based on this limit. If it was a 6 week limit, more may have voted for, if it was for example a 20 week limit, people might have voted differently. People voted based on a well advertised 12 week limit.
3. Politicians from across the board in the elected Dail and Seanad supported the 12 week limit in legislation.

I don't think you can get more of a consensus or agreement than that. This wasn't one person or a dictator imposing a 12 week limit, it came initially from the Citizens Assembly, was part of a referendum campaign which gained a majority and was put into law by legislators representing constituents. By any standard that is the agreement of society and anything else is hair splitting.

ToBeFrank123 · 21-05-2019 10:58am

AulWan wrote: »

I wouldn't expect any, not from those who have shown yet again that their only consideration in this scenario is for the fetus.

And I wouldn't expect any consideration from those (aka you) who have no concern for any foetus even a healthy one over 12 weeks.

See I can sling mud just as well as you.

ToBeFrank123 · 21-05-2019 11:00am

gctest50 wrote: »

This probably would not have happened if the limit here was 20 /24 weeks

What probably wouldn't have happened?

Mrsmum · 21-05-2019 11:03am

AulWan wrote: »

I wouldn't expect any, not from those who have shown yet again that their only consideration in this scenario is for the fetus.

I don't understand your position here. Of course it would be very stressful to wait for results to come back but that's as nothing compared with finding out you aborted a healthy baby that you wanted because you couldn't bear to wait. We're supposed to be all grown up, what kind of childish logic is that. If doctors find a lump in my breast, am I going to say I can't bear the worry, whip it off before the conclusive biopsy. Who would do that. In this case as in all these cases the foetus is silent now, it's the parents that are not happy so how can you say people are making this all about the foetus. The parents are the ones left with the horror of this.

AulWan · 21-05-2019 11:04am

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And I wouldn't expect any consideration from those (aka you) who have no concern for any foetus even a healthy one over 12 weeks.

See I can sling mud just as well as you.

The fetus-in-utero is not sentient and suffering, unlike the woman who is carrying it.

Fast editing, by the way.

nozzferrahhtoo · 21-05-2019 11:05am

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I don't like hair splitting as much as the next person, but.. The 12 week limit was what was agreed by

None of which changes the fact that it is STILL wrong to claim that is what we voted on. We did not. We voted on one thing and one thing only, a change to the constitution.

Everything else, including the 12 weeks, was not part of the vote. To claim otherwise is simply wrong. This is not "splitting hairs". One is true. The other is false. One is historically accurate. The other is merely making stuff up.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And I wouldn't expect any consideration from those (aka you) who have no concern for any foetus even a healthy one over 12 weeks.

IF you could come up with reasoning as to why I should have concern for a fetus at 12 weeks, I would have some concern for a fetus at 12 weeks.

You have not done this. But no one else has either, so I am not singling you out here.

ToBeFrank123 · 21-05-2019 11:09am

AulWan wrote: »

The fetus-in-utero is not sentient and suffering, unlike the woman who is carrying it.

Fast editing, by the way.

Where have I said abortions under 12 weeks or abortions over 12 weeks for FFA or health of the mother reasons shouldn't be allowed?

If you followed this specific case, the foetus turned out to be perfectly healthy and if they had waited a couple more weeks they would have discovered this.

I've every sympathy for parents in FFA situations and totally agree they should abort when they have all the information at hand. I disagree they should abort before all the tests come in. We have seen the flaws in the process in this case and potentially other cases.

So stop saying I only support the foetus in all cases, that's a complete lie.

AulWan · 21-05-2019 11:10am

Mrsmum wrote: »

I don't understand your position here. Of course it would be very stressful to wait for results to come back but that's as nothing compared with finding out you aborted a healthy baby that you wanted because you couldn't bear to wait. We're supposed to be all grown up, what kind of childish logic is that. If doctors find a lump in my breast, am I going to say I can't bear the worry, whip it off before the conclusive biopsy. Who would do that. In this case as in all these cases the foetus is silent now, it's the parents that are not happy so how can you say people are making this all about the foetus. The parents are the ones left with the horror of this.

My logic is not complicated. To use your analogy, if I was told I had a lump in my breast that my Doctors were 99% sure was cancerous, then yes, I would tell them to whip it off.

I wouldn't be holding out for another couple of weeks in which the cancer could grow on the 1% chance that the test was wrong.

A 99% positive result is conclusive, as far as i'm concerned.

ToBeFrank123 · 21-05-2019 11:19am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

None of which changes the fact that it is STILL wrong to claim that is what we voted on. We did not. We voted on one thing and one thing only, a change to the constitution.

Everything else, including the 12 weeks, was not part of the vote. To claim otherwise is simply wrong. This is not "splitting hairs". One is true. The other is false. One is historically accurate. The other is merely making stuff up.

IF you could come up with reasoning as to why I should have concern for a fetus at 12 weeks, I would have some concern for a fetus at 12 weeks.

You have not done this. But no one else has either, so I am not singling you out here.

So you had no idea that 12 weeks was going to be the limit as set out by the Citizens Assembly and as argued for by all the prominent Pro Appeal representatives during the referendum campaign? If not then you mustn't have followed the campaign closely. Most people knew what they were voting for, the removal of the 8th, replaced by legislation which allowed abortion up to 12 weeks.

Its not for me to come up with reasoning why you should have concern for anything. Its up to you. I don't particularly care if you have concern for a foetus at any gestational age. As I said before everything is subjective, but the majority through CA, referendum and Legislation fixed on 12 weeks as the limit. Democracy in action.

AulWan · 21-05-2019 11:21am

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

I've every sympathy for parents in FFA situations and totally agree they should abort when they have all the information at hand.

Not that I have seen. You have posted that in your opinion termination for FFA should not be signed off on without an amniocentesis, which would mean some parents living in limbo until at the earliest 18 weeks for those results to come back.

In my opinion, that's cruel, and if they decide they want to go ahead and end the pregnancy earlier on the basis of a 99% positive CVS test result, then they have nothing to be judged for. But according to you, if that's their decision, they deserve no sympathy.

nozzferrahhtoo · 21-05-2019 11:26am

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

So you had no idea that 12 weeks was going to be the limit as set out by the Citizens Assembly

That is not only not what I have been saying to you in the previous posts, it is the exact opposite of what I have been saying to you in the previous posts. You are not engaging in this discussion in good faith at all.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Most people knew what they were voting for, the removal of the 8th, replaced by legislation which allowed abortion up to 12 weeks.

"Most people" I think knew both of those things AND the distinction between them in that they knew A) What they were voting on

What the likely consequence of that vote would be and C) The distinction between those two things.

That you are conflating them says something only about you, not "most people" and as I said more than once now I am aware of people who voted to remove the 8th not because of what would likely happen next but DESPITE it.... in that they thought removal of the 8th was the right thing to do DESPITE disagreeing strongly with the proposed legislation.

We voted on one thing and one thing only, regardless of what you might want to pretend.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Its not for me to come up with reasoning why you should have concern for anything. Its up to you.

So you can't do it either, basically.

But no I do not think "everything" is subjective. But even where things are, that does not make everything equally subjective by any stretch, which is worth noting also. Some things are ENTIRELY subjective and arbitrary while other things are strongly constrained and based on arguments, evidence, data and reasoning. That distinction is lost if we merely hand wave it all away as "everything is subjective".

Having moral and ethical concern for a 12-16 week fetus for example appears to be ENTIRELY subjective and arbitrary.

ToBeFrank123 · 21-05-2019 11:26am

AulWan wrote: »

My logic is not complicated. To use your analogy, if I was told I had a lump in my breast that my Doctors were 99% sure was cancerous, then yes, I would tell them to whip it off.

I wouldn't be holding out for another couple of weeks in which the cancer could grow on the 1% chance that the test was wrong.

A 99% positive result is conclusive, as far as i'm concerned.

And what if they told you after you had whipped off the breast they made a mistake and there was another even more accurate test they forgot to tell you about? Would you say "ah sure these things happen" or would you consider pursuing legal action?

volchitsa · 21-05-2019 11:28am

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And what if they told you after you had whipped off the breast that they made a mistake and there was another even more accurate test they forgot to tell you about?

None of that would justify a generalised ban on mastectomies though.

ToBeFrank123 · 21-05-2019 11:29am

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is not only not what I have been saying to you in the previous posts, it is the exact opposite of what I have been saying to you in the previous posts. You are not engaging in this discussion in good faith at all.

"Most people" I think knew both of those things AND the distinction between them in that they knew A) What they were voting on What the likely consequence of that vote would be and C) The distinction between those two things.

That you are conflating them says something only about you, not "most people" and as I said more than once now I am aware of people who voted to remove the 8th not because of what would likely happen next but DESPITE it.... in that they thought removal of the 8th was the right thing to do DESPITE disagreeing strongly with the proposed legislation.

We voted on one thing and one thing only, regardless of what you might want to pretend.

So you can't do it either, basically.

But no I do not think "everything" is subjective. But even where things are, that does not make everything equally subjective by any stretch, which is worth noting also. Some things are ENTIRELY subjective and arbitrary while other things are strongly constrained and based on arguments, evidence, data and reasoning. That distinction is lost if we merely hand wave it all away as "everything is subjective".

Having moral and ethical concern for a 12-16 week fetus for example appears to be ENTIRELY subjective and arbitrary.

No difference of opinion there. But society through democracy has set on 12 weeks as the limit.

12 weeks is the limit. I don't particularly care if you agree with it or not. Its factually the legal limit.

ToBeFrank123 · 21-05-2019 11:30am

volchitsa wrote: »

None of that would justify a generalised ban on mastectomies though.

And who exactly is arguing for that?

nozzferrahhtoo · 21-05-2019 11:32am

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

No difference of opinion there. But society through democracy has set on 12 weeks as the limit.

Sure I already said that myself. But the only democracy that was involved was that we elected the people who wrote that legislation. We did not vote for 12 weeks however. We only voted to remove the 8th. No more. No less.

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

12 weeks is the limit. I don't particularly care if you agree with it or not. Its factually the legal limit.

I am happy with it. I would be equally happy with 16 weeks however. Maybe a tiny bit more so. I would not seek 20 weeks, but I would be in NO way actively unhappy with it were it to come about. I see no reason to be.

But 12 weeks facilitates well over 90% of the people who seek choice based abortion so I am entirely satisfied with that result.

My spell checked tried to change that to sissified, which for some reason amuses me deeply.

AulWan · 21-05-2019 11:37am

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And what if they told you after you had whipped off the breast they made a mistake and there was another even more accurate test they forgot to tell you about? Would you say "ah sure these things happen" or would you consider pursuing legal action?

Me personally, no I don't think I would consider it. I'd just be glad I was cancer free.

We'll have to wait until there is an official inquiry to find out the circumstances of what these parents were told exactly.

But according to the ladies on the thread who have posted about being in this exact situation, it's doubtful they weren't told about it.

ToBeFrank123 · 21-05-2019 11:44am

AulWan wrote: »

Me personally, no I don't think I would consider it. I'd just be glad I was cancer free.

We'll have to wait until there is an official inquiry to find out the circumstances of what these parents were told exactly.

But according to the ladies on the thread who have posted about being in this exact situation, it's doubtful they weren't told about it.

We will have to wait for the enquiry.

Let's hope its not Cervical Check 2.0. Ie Abortion of potentially non FFA foetuses based on inconclusive information. The question now are there other cases.

Mrsmum · 21-05-2019 11:51am

AulWan wrote: »

My logic is not complicated. To use your analogy, if I was told I had a lump in my breast that my Doctors were 99% sure was cancerous, then yes, I would tell them to whip it off.

I wouldn't be holding out for another couple of weeks in which the cancer could grow on the 1% chance that the test was wrong.

A 99% positive result is conclusive, as far as i'm concerned.

Well I wouldn't, not if I knew another test was out there waiting to come back. What's the point of the double test otherwise. But in your case, that would be your choice and you would then have to live with that. You couldn't have it both ways, refusing to wait and then saying what happened shouldn't have happened. How would it not happen in some cases ?
Btw not saying that is the case with these parents. Just following your logic.

....... · 21-05-2019 11:57am

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

We will have to wait for the enquiry.

Let's hope its not Cervical Check 2.0. Ie Abortion of potentially non FFA foetuses based on inconclusive information. The question now are there other cases.

Well thats a bit naive I think.

There are ALWAYS going to be cases where misinformation or lack of information leads people to make a choice that they might not have made if they had known more. And no medical test is 100% absolute.

So yes, there are other cases, there will be more other cases.

political analyst · 21-05-2019 12:02pm

From May last year:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/i-felt-abandoned-by-this-country-mother-who-had-termination-in-uk-36892200.html

Vicky Wall, a 41-year-old anti-abortion activist campaigning in Nenagh, Co Tipperary, said a doctor brought up the option of abortion when her unborn baby was diagnosed with Edwards' syndrome, a genetic disorder.

"What the doctor actually said was 'you can pop to England', which was horrific," she said.

She carried the baby to full term instead. "My baby was born at 32 weeks, then she died. I got to take her home, spend time with her," she said.

Doesn't what that doctor said to Vicky Wall indicate an indecently enthusiastic attitude to abortion in the medical profession, i.e. putting pressure of women with pregnancies that are believed to have FFA to have their pregnancies terminated?

AulWan · 21-05-2019 12:04pm

Mrsmum wrote: »

Well I wouldn't, not if I knew another test was out there waiting to come back.

That would be your choice, which you are perfectly entitled to.

Mrsmum wrote: »

What's the point of the double test otherwise. But in your case, that would be your choice and you would then have to live with that.

And as I have already indicated, I would live with it, because yes, it was my choice.

Mrsmum wrote: »

You couldn't have it both ways, refusing to wait and then saying what happened shouldn't have happened.

See above.

For many people, (not saying all) a 99% positive result from CVS would be a conclusive enough positive for them to make their decision on. They are not doing anything wrong for this.

I don't agree that a termination for FFA should be conditional on waiting until 18 weeks for the results of an amniocentesis test, before being allowed to end the pregnancy, as has been suggested. Its as simple as that.

Igotadose · 21-05-2019 12:10pm

political analyst wrote: »

From May last year:

Doesn't what that doctor said to Vicky Wall indicate an indecently enthusiastic attitude to abortion in the medical profession, i.e. putting pressure of women with pregnancies that are believed to have FFA to have their pregnancies terminated?

If you're sheep enough to believe her. Pro-life are 'economical with the truth' to quote a poster here from last year.

And how heartless of her to inflict that pain on the child. Awful person, typical pro-life activist though, all about the fetus and themselves.

ToBeFrank123 · 21-05-2019 12:18pm

Igotadose wrote: »

If you're sheep enough to believe her. Pro-life are 'economical with the truth' to quote a poster here from last year.

And how heartless of her to inflict that pain on the child. Awful person, typical pro-life activist though, all about the fetus and themselves.

I see no issue with the doctors advice. Parents of FFA need to be given all the options. And they also need to be given all the information about testing to avoid what just happened.

Safe and competent abortions is what most people are asking for. Unsafe and incompetent abortions serve no-one, I think everyone can agree on that at least.

Mrsmum · 21-05-2019 12:33pm

Igotadose wrote: »

If you're sheep enough to believe her. Pro-life are 'economical with the truth' to quote a poster here from last year.

And how heartless of her to inflict that pain on the child. Awful person, typical pro-life activist though, all about the fetus and themselves.

Hmmm, it isn't Vicky Wall that these parents are accusing of being economical with the truth.

Your other comment says more about you than anyone and in case there's a doubt that's not a compliment.

Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

Comments