Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

12467…99

Comments

  • #92
    Amalgam
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,026 ✭✭✭Amalgam


    UTV NEWS gave this some report time late in the evening, including an Irish Times cover shot.

    Awful event.


  • #93
    otto_26
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 518 ✭✭✭otto_26


    Stheno wrote: »
    Point me to the legislation in the Statute books that has this written into law please?

    Point me to the legislation in the Statute books that has this written, where it says it is illegal for the medical intervention to save the life of the mother?

    Because this is what you are saying?


  • #94
    GRMA
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭GRMA


    Would she have survived if she had an abortion?


  • #95
    otto_26
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 518 ✭✭✭otto_26


    lukesmom wrote: »
    About time abortion was legalised in this country ran by idiots. I am so angry reading this.

    May this lady rest in peace

    If a Irish woman living in Ireland needs a termination because the pregnancy is a risk to her life then the doctors will do the termination to save the women's life. What has this story got to do with abortion or pro-lifers? Its a story about doctors not doing their job properly. :rolleyes:


  • #96
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Deleted User wrote: »
    This is going to sound like an idiotic question, but is there a difference between unlawful and illegal?

    I'm going to assume that if there is one then unlawful means that there isn't a law against it to break..?

    Sorry they mean the same, currently there is no legislating allowing for any form of abortion so to carry out an abortion is an illegal/unlawful act
    irishfeen wrote: »
    But couldn't a doctor go to the High Court/European Court of Human Rights and get any decision overturned in any case regardless of whether he is found guilty because of government inaction?

    After the fact? After they had commited the "crime" of carrying out an abortion and being reported to the Medical Council etc?

    The medical profession here (and this is where the church comes in) is still heavily influenced by the church and I don't think any doctor who carried out an abortion in any circumstances would get away with it.

    The defence of "it saved the womans life" might be upheld by the courts, but they would also have to rule in the context of current laws which is that abortion is illegal.

    The govt have ignored the Supreme Court on this for 20 years, what makes you think a doctor would ruin their career for the sake of one persons life on that basis?


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I'm just after reading the article in the times.

    My heart goes out to the husband.

    I'm just mad....


  • #98
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    otto_26 wrote: »
    If a Irish woman living in Ireland needs a termination because the pregnancy is a risk to her life then the doctors will do the termination to save the women's life. What has this story got to do with abortion or pro-lifers? Its a story about doctors not doing their job properly. :rolleyes:

    Would you please please point us to the legislation in the statute books to back up your statement as I've already asked you?

    Also inherent in your post is a suggestion that because the poor woman who died was not Irish she did not get equal treatment?

    Why would an Irish woman living in Ireland get a termination and someone who is a non-national not?

    Your arguments are non sensical and have no basis in fact.


  • #99
    evercloserunion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,889 ✭✭✭evercloserunion


    otto_26 wrote: »
    Point me to the legislation in the Statute books that has this written, where it says it is illegal for the medical intervention to save the life of the mother?

    Because this is what you are saying?
    Abortion is prohibited in Ireland by sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861:
    58. Every Woman, being with Child, who, with Intent to procure her own Miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, and whosoever, with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman, whether she be or be not with Child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, shall be guilty of [an offence], and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ..., to [imprisonment] for Life ....

    59. Whosoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any Poison or other noxious Thing, or any Instrument or Thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman, whether she be or be not with Child, shall be guilty of [an offence], and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ..., to [imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years].

    There is no exception there for cases where the mother's life is in danger.

    The mother can travel to another jurisdiction for an abortion in such circumstances, and the Constitution allows for legislation providing an exception to the ban in such circumstances, but no such exception has actually been created by legislation.


  • #100
    irishfeen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,069 ✭✭✭irishfeen


    Stheno wrote: »
    what makes you think a doctor would ruin their career for the sake of one persons life on that basis?

    I think any decent doctor would take the option of ruining his/her career rather than having blood on their hands for the rest of their lives.


  • #101
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    The practice of caesarian hysterectomies by Michael Neary and by other doctors was defended at the time because of Catholic church teaching. It would seem the more things change, the more they stay the same, Ireland is still Catholic in the eyes of some.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Advertisement
  • #102
    Duggy747
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    What should've been the beginning of a family has now left a man with nothing.

    Stupid shìt like this shouldn't happen in a developed country.


  • #103
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Smidge wrote: »
    Tragic story..
    I hope this doctors remarks were not instigated by the fact that the poor woman was Muslim ie "THIS is a CATHOLIC country.

    She's wearing a bindi in the photo so she's probably a Hindu. Imagine travelling to India and refused treatment and allowed to die because "This is a Hindu Country and we believe in reincarnation!"

    If this does not force X Case legislation then politicians should truly be shot.


  • #104
    seenitall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,734 ✭✭✭seenitall


    irishfeen wrote: »
    I think any decent doctor would take the option of ruining his/her career rather than having blood on their hands for the rest of their lives.

    A doctor's "decency"/morality/religion/Hobbit worship should have nothing whatsoever to do with it. He/she should have been required by the law to carry out the procedure.


  • #105
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    otto_26 wrote: »
    Point me to the legislation in the Statute books that has this written, where it says it is illegal for the medical intervention to save the life of the mother?

    Because this is what you are saying?

    Section 58 and 59 of the Offences against the person act state:
    58. Every Woman, being with Child, who, with Intent to procure her own Miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, and whosoever, with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman, whether she be or be not with Child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, shall be guilty of [an offence], and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ..., to [imprisonment] for Life .... [3]

    59. Whosoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any Poison or other noxious Thing, or any Instrument or Thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman, whether she be or be not with Child, shall be guilty of [an offence], and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ..., to [imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years].[4]

    The text of the 1992 amendment stated:
    It shall be unlawful to terminate the life of an unborn unless such termination is necessary to save the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother where there is an illness or disorder of the mother giving rise to a real and substantial risk to her life, not being a risk of self-destruction.

    That has never been written into law.
    Section 21 of the Medical Council guidelines state:
    Section 21 deals with the issue of Abortion.

    Section 21.1 reads

    21.1 Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother. Under current legal precedent, this exception includes where there is a clear and substantial risk to the life of the mother arising from a threat of suicide. You should undertake a full assessment of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.

    Section 21.2 deals with information about abortions.

    Section 21.3 deals with the duty to provide care and support for women who have had abortions abroad.

    Section 21.4 states

    21.4 In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy) is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.

    So it's very vague, and not even law
    GRMA wrote: »
    Would she have survived if she had an abortion?

    Most likely, if they had aborted on day one or two, her risk of septicemia as the cervix closed would have been far less.


  • #106
    ABajaninCork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,411 ✭✭✭ABajaninCork


    MadsL wrote: »
    She's wearing a bindi in the photo so she's probably a Hindu. Imagine travelling to India and refused treatment and allowed to die because "This is a Hindu Country and we believe in reincarnation!"

    If this does not force X Case legislation then politicians should truly be shot.

    The lady was indeed Hindu. And I totally agree with you.

    Poor lady. May she and her baby RIP :(


  • #107
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,698 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    K-9 wrote: »
    The practice of caesarian hysterectomies by Michael Neary and by other doctors was defended at the time because of Catholic church teaching. It would seem the more things change, the more they stay the same, Ireland is still Catholic in the eyes of some.

    ****ing disgraceful. Religion should have no role to play within the medical profession.

    It is time that we demanded for legislation regarding the X case.


  • #108
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Stheno wrote: »
    Section 58 and 59 of the Offences against the person act state:
    58. Every Woman, being with Child, who, with Intent to procure her own Miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, and whosoever, with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman, whether she be or be not with Child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, shall be guilty of [an offence], and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ..., to [imprisonment] for Life .... [3]

    Holy shit. A girl getting abortificant pills from the UK is liable for a LIFE SENTENCE in prison!!

    That's messed up.


  • #109
    BostonB
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,053 ✭✭✭✭BostonB


    K-9 wrote: »
    That isn't really the issue, if the consultant had said there was no chance of the baby surviving he should have agreed to her wishes and performed an "abortion".

    AFAIK they can't (legally?) perform an abortion if there's signs of life and the mother isn't at immediate risk. AFAIK mothers carry a baby that won't survive to term, if the baby survives to that point.


  • #110
    Gbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Stheno wrote: »
    The govt have ignored the Supreme Court on this for 20 years, what makes you think a doctor would ruin their career for the sake of one persons life on that basis?

    Basic human decency.

    We should be talking about how a doctor defied a nonsensical legislative approach to abortion and is now the target of a completely unjust disciplinary process and/or prosecution.

    It reflects appallingly on the individual that we aren't.


  • #111
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    The public has been demanding legislation for the X Case for twenty bloody years, and nothing's happened. Twenty years! And in all that time not a single politician that passed through the Dáil had enough of a spine to do their job and f*cking legislate for it.


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Smidge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,541 ✭✭✭Smidge


    ABajaninCork wrote: »
    The lady was indeed Hindu. And I totally agree with you.

    Poor lady. May she and her baby RIP :(

    Apologies, my mind read Muslim.
    She was indeed Hindu.

    Poor soul and family, terrible loss over stupidity.


  • #113
    Sorcha16
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 343 ✭✭Sorcha16


    If this happened in medieval darkest Africa, it would be sad and tragic -for it to happen in a so-called developed country in 2012 is a downright disgrace


  • #114
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Ok not particularly knowledgeable about how Irish law on abortion/termination (I use both because 'abortion' can be defined as termination of a viable fetus) is interpreted but I thought this was exactly the sort of case that was permitted even if not legislated directly for.

    I'm a firm believer in the Irish health care systems capacity to fcuk up badly without any help from outside influences!


  • #115
    otto_26
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 518 ✭✭✭otto_26


    Stheno wrote: »
    Would you please please point us to the legislation in the statute books to back up your statement as I've already asked you?

    Would you please please point us to the legislation in the statute books to back up your statement as I've already asked you?

    Hmm wonder why you haven't done this yourself maybe I asked you a unreasonable question maybe it's not written in the statute books that it is illegal for medical intervention to save the life of the mother so you can't show me....

    The whole point is it's not about whether it's in the statute book it's about would it be illegal for the doctor to perform a medical intervention to save the life of the mother and the answer is no it is not illegal, simple.
    Stheno wrote: »
    Also inherent in your post is a suggestion that because the poor woman who died was not Irish she did not get equal treatment?

    Why would an Irish woman living in Ireland get a termination and someone who is a non-national not?

    Your arguments are non sensical and have no basis in fact.

    WOW no there was absolutely no suggestion that because the poor woman who died was not Irish she did not get equal treatment:rolleyes::rolleyes:.. You have got that all wrong I was simply describing the facts about Irish women and termination in Ireland.

    And WOW you then also claim it's now my argument!! :rolleyes:


  • #116
    tony81
    Closed Accounts Posts: 595 ✭✭✭tony81


    Pride Fighter wrote: »
    Well done to the scum in Youth Defence, they have blood on their hands.
    Disgraceful attitude.
    Perhaps she had pregnancy complications and septicemia, but do you know for certain that she was denied abortion and that's what caused her death?
    In Ireland no pregnant woman is denied medical treatment, even treatment that will end he life of the baby if it will save the mother.
    That's our law, and it's the reason Irish women have so few abortions yet one of the lowest mortality in child birth rates in the world.
    Stick to the facts and stop dragging up tragedies to push your own agenda.


  • #117
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    MadsL wrote: »
    Stheno wrote: »
    Section 58 and 59 of the Offences against the person act state:



    Holy shit. A girl getting abortificant pills from the UK is liable for a LIFE SENTENCE in prison!!

    That's messed up.

    Welcome to Ireland 2012

    I should have said, but was too caught up arguing, my sincere condolences to the family of the young lady who died. What a dreadful time for them, when it should have been a time of celebration and welcoming a new life into the world.


  • #118
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    Cookie_Monster wrote: »
    depends on what he valued more, his nutjob religious belief or his Hippocratic oath.

    Or his job and ability to practice medicine in Ireland...

    If his hands were tied by the law, there is NOTHING he could do about it.


  • #119
    seenitall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,734 ✭✭✭seenitall


    tony81 wrote: »
    In Ireland no pregnant woman is denied medical treatment, even treatment that will end he life of the baby if it will save the mother.
    That's our law,

    LOL.


  • #120
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Just read the article. So she asked for the termination but was refused on the grounds that it's a Catholic country.

    Absolutely disgusting.

    Hospitals and any hospital staff should not have any pro-life or pro-choice agendas and should focus solely on what is right for the patient regardless of personal feelings.

    She was denied on the grounds that the law in Ireland is extremely clear and if anyone in the hospital had have carried out an abortion, they could have ended up in jail.

    Don't blame the hospital, blame the law.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    otto_26
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 518 ✭✭✭otto_26


    Stheno wrote: »
    Section 58 and 59 of the Offences against the person act state:



    The text of the 1992 amendment stated:



    That has never been written into law.
    Section 21 of the Medical Council guidelines state:



    So it's very vague, and not even law



    Most likely, if they had aborted on day one or two, her risk of septicemia as the cervix closed would have been far less.

    Yes but it doesn't matter that it isn't written into law, because the fact is that it is not illegal for the doctor to perform a medical intervention to save the life of the mother..

    Therefore what had abortion or pro-lifers got to do with this?? Its about a doctor not doing his job properly...because it would have been legal what he did if he terminated.


Advertisement