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

1…457910…99

Comments

  • #182
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    irishfeen wrote: »
    Yes but it is the position of the Irish High Court meaning any conviction would be overturned by the High Court/European Court of Human rights?

    Which could take years, maybe even decades in court to get that far and potentially cost the people involved in any such case their livelyhoods in the process as well as every penny they might have to their names?


  • #183
    PaddyORuadhan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 563 ✭✭✭PaddyORuadhan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Lot of silliness really. This has nothing to do with our laws on abortion, whatever one's opinion may be of them, if a pregnant woman was suffering from septicemia I doubt she'd be told "We don't do abortion, this is a catholic country" and then just manage to recount the tale to a journalist as she died. If most of the facts are as presented it's malpractice/negligence.

    It was her poor husband that told the journo that detail.

    The fact is that a pregnancy that was clearly going wrong that seems to have directly lead to the septecemia, that this pregnancy couldn't be terminated due to the lack of clarity in the laws on abortion


  • #184
    seenitall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,734 ✭✭✭seenitall


    irishfeen wrote: »
    Yes but it is the position of the Irish High Court meaning any conviction would be overturned by the High Court/European Court of Human rights?

    Yes, class! I'm sure that's exactly what's running through doctors' heads when presented with cases like these!


  • #185
    Rascasse
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭Rascasse


    Seaneh wrote: »
    I didn't say that either, I am saying that the Hospital didn't just let a woman die, and everyone on here saying they did is just spreading nonsense, without knowing the actual details of the case, nobody can make any judgements on what happened.

    There are a million and one reasons why this could have went wrong and without knowing which reason that is you cannot assign blame to anyone.


    This is how witch hunts start and peoples reputations and lives are ruins because of baying mobs on uninformed idiots.


    While you say that "the Hospital didn't just let a woman die", we can't rule out that her life could have been saved by her receiving the appropriate treatment. As I mentioned in this post, there was a conference held here two months ago by a group of 140 pro-life medical staff (though the claimed “All organisers were involved in their professional capacity and were not here to represent any pro-life position,”) that agreed the "Dublin declaration".

    The organiser was Eamon O’Dwyer, Professor Emeritus of Gynaecology & Obstetrics at N.U.I., Galway. While obviously now retired, he trained doctors at UCHG for how many years?

    Also in attendance was Dr John Monaghan, a clinical teacher at Portiuncula Hospital, Ballinasloe (also part of NUIG)

    Were any of the other 140 medical staff in attendence part of the team looking after her? And, if so, did their beliefs affect the treatment she was given. I hope the media find out.

    (Oh, and Dr Eoghan de Faoite, he of Youth Defence, was also at the conference)


  • #186
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,451 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    MagicSean wrote: »
    It is not legal. It is constitutional. The doctors hands were tied because in two decades no government has seen fit to make it legal. Every government since the x case has this womans blood on their hands.

    No justification for saying that this is a "Catholic country". I well believe that this was said as many people still believe that this is a Catholic country. Shameful and disgusting.

    Would a man have been treated the same way? No bloody way.


  • Advertisement
  • #187
    tolosenc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,889 ✭✭✭tolosenc


    tony81 wrote: »
    What bull****! There's now an abortion clinic in belfast and any number of "family planning" advice clinics in ireland. Anyone callous enough to have an abortion doesn't need to go to too much effort to find one.

    OK, I'll cut a massive hole in your head and leave you in a field in the back arse of Leitrim.

    Sure, anyone who needs a hospital can find one quite easily.

    Do you actually believe the rubbish you spout?


  • #188
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,909 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    PaddyORuadhan wrote: »
    It was her poor husband that told the journo that detail.

    The fact is that a pregnancy that was clearly going wrong that seems to have directly lead to the septecemia, that this pregnancy couldn't be terminated due to the lack of clarity in the laws on abortion

    I still don't think I'm going to be buying this as a case of the law being a problem. I know of several cases in passing where a foetus/baby wasn't going to survive and was "delivered prematurely". There's plenty that doctors can do and I've still yet to see anything to suggest that the doctors couldn't have just been sensible in this case. Again it all sounds like either malpractice or negligence.


  • #189
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    seb65 wrote: »
    And as a doctor, "you set the leg"

    If these doctors used this woman as some sort of example over their displeasure at a lack of proper legislation on when they can legally terminate a pregnancy, they should not be doctors. Lord knows the HSE has no problem running to the court every time a Jehovah Witness refuses a blood transfusion, why not some court action in this case? If a fetus is dying and is not feasible and a woman is enduring a three day miscarriage, surely that is endangering her health and not treating her health equally?

    Given the timeframe, I suspect hospital legal advice even with the most blatant advocate for abortion would have had difficulty getting it dealt with to be honest. Also the lady who died was in goodish health for half that time frame so if they followed the guidelines by the time it got serious there was not much they could have done unless they got an emergency ruling within hours on the second day.

    Courts don't run on hours/days.
    irishfeen wrote: »
    Yes but it is the position of the Irish High Court meaning any conviction would be overturned by the High Court/European Court of Human rights?
    The Irish Supreme Court and the ECHR have both ruled that it should be law to allow terminations in certain circumstances including this one, it's been ignored for years by government due to their fear of the more right wing elements of society


  • #190
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Its a sensitive and emotive subject at the best of times, never mind with a particular case involved.

    With that in mind, less of the LOL and sarcastic replies, show a little decorum and respect.

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



  • #191
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I still don't think I'm going to be buying this as a case of the law being a problem. I know of several cases in passing where a foetus/baby wasn't going to survive and was "delivered prematurely". There's plenty that doctors can do and I've still yet to see anything to suggest that the doctors couldn't have just been sensible in this case. Again it all sounds like either malpractice or negligence.

    Plenty of cases in the Irish times in the past year when they ran their abortion stories series, where couples went to the UK for an abortion as the foetus wasn't viable.

    Different from this scenario early labour, 17 week old foetus, with no chance of survival, I've not come across it before.

    IMO the health of the mother should have been paramount.


  • Advertisement
  • #192
    irishfeen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,069 ✭✭✭irishfeen


    seenitall wrote: »
    Yes, class! I'm sure that's exactly what's running through doctors' heads when presented with cases like these!

    But it would eventually clear the doctor of any wrongdoing, why wouldn't it run through their heads if deep down they know what is the right thing to do as to their medical training.


  • #193
    seenitall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,734 ✭✭✭seenitall


    otto_26 wrote: »
    But it's not illegal to perform a medical intervention to save the life of the mother. So asking me about what's written into law has nothing to do with what happened.

    Also since I answered your question! please show me where it is written into law that it is illegal for a doctor to perform a medical intervention to save the life of the mother... considering

    The 1992 High court decision dictate that if the mother's life is at risk an abortion is allowed without any malpractice or illegality.

    Section 21 of the Medical Council guidelines state:
    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.

    Still, as long as you're proud of me!;)

    Already shown on-thread twice or three times, I lose track... but it means nothing to you, so I won't be engaging with you any more. Enjoy!


  • #194
    flynnlives
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 739 ✭✭✭flynnlives


    Stheno wrote: »
    Given the timeframe, I suspect hospital legal advice even with the most blatant advocate for abortion would have had difficulty getting it dealt with to be honest. Also the lady who died was in goodish health for half that time frame so if they followed the guidelines by the time it got serious there was not much they could have done unless they got an emergency ruling within hours on the second day.

    Courts don't run on hours/days.

    they do of course.

    In emergency situations courts can sit within hours.

    This women was more then 3 days in hospital.

    Plenty of time.


  • #195
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,909 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Stheno wrote: »
    The Irish Supreme Court and the ECHR have both ruled that it should be law to allow terminations in certain circumstances including this one, it's been ignored for years by government due to their fear of the more right wing elements of society

    Exactly, so whatever our silly laws it would be legal. If they tried to suspend the doc who ordered it they'd have a union suing them to a European court and would back down. It all still seems like one or two people ****ed up and are trying to hide behind some legislation or rules that don't actually apply.


  • #196
    tolosenc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,889 ✭✭✭tolosenc


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    No justification for saying that this is a "Catholic country". I well believe that this was said as many people still believe that this is a Catholic country. Shameful and disgusting.

    I can scarcely imagine what further horrors the Catholic church can inflict on this country. Rape and abuse of countless children, psychological abuse and shaming of women... They are a disgrace to the Christian faith. I'm a tolerant person, but any such organisation should be permanently banished from this country.


  • #197
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    No justification for saying that this is a "Catholic country". I well believe that this was said as many people still believe that this is a Catholic country. Shameful and disgusting.

    Would a man have been treated the same way? No bloody way.

    No offence, but no man would ever be in the situation where his medical treatment would be considered in term of the impact on a foetus, so that's a complete red herring.


  • #198
    Sorcha16
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 343 ✭✭Sorcha16


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    No justification for saying that this is a "Catholic country".

    When latching on to that very convenient soundbite, please bear in mind the sensationalist nature of newspapers and the fact that that they were talking to a very unfortunate man in a highly emotive state.


  • #199
    irishfeen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,069 ✭✭✭irishfeen


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Exactly, so whatever our silly laws it would be legal. If they tried to suspend the doc who ordered it they'd have a union suing them to a European court and would back down. It all still seems like one or two people ****ed up and are trying to hide behind some legislation or rules that don't actually apply.

    Dead right, it would be initially proved illegal by silly laws but the will of the people would eventually clear the doctor through the High Court/European Court.


  • #200
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,451 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Stheno wrote: »
    No offence, but no man would ever be in the situation where his medical treatment would be considered in term of the impact on a foetus, so that's a complete red herring.

    Of course, but the point is that if there was similar situation a man would not be treated the same. Did you not understand the point I was making?


  • #201
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    flynnlives wrote: »
    they do of course.

    In emergency situations courts can sit within hours.

    This women was more then 3 days in hospital.

    Plenty of time.

    Yes but her condition only became critical almost two days into that 3 days.

    Best course of action would have been for her family to initiate legal proceedings for an abortion.

    The medical profession here are extremely conservative


  • Advertisement
  • #202
    tolosenc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,889 ✭✭✭tolosenc


    Stheno wrote: »
    No offence, but no man would ever be in the situation where his medical treatment would be considered in term of the impact on a foetus, so that's a complete red herring.

    Well, you thoroughly dismantled that straw man! Good job!


  • #203
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    Of course, but the point is that if there was similar situation a man would not be treated the same. Did you not understand the point I was making?

    No to be honest. The woman was pregnant and begging for an abortion.
    A man would never be in that situation.

    Regardless of the gender here, the law ultimately discerned the treatment of the patient.

    Trying to say Oh if it was a man it would be different is a complete strawman in my opinion.


  • #204
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,451 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Stheno wrote: »
    No to be honest. The woman was pregnant and begging for an abortion.
    A man would never be in that situation.

    Regardless of the gender here, the law ultimately discerned the treatment of the patient.

    Trying to say Oh if it was a man it would be different is a complete strawman in my opinion.

    The point is clearly that the law is sexist towards women. Do you seriously not see that?

    I.E. if men were in a position to have children, abortion would be legalised centuries ago.


  • #205
    Seaneh
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 18,300 ✭✭✭✭Seaneh


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    The point is clearly that the law is sexist towards women. Do you seriously not see that?

    I.E. if men were in a position to have children, abortion would be legalised centuries ago.

    There are no words...


  • #206
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    irishfeen wrote: »
    Dead right, it would be initially proved illegal by silly laws but the will of the people would eventually clear the doctor through the High Court/European Court.

    Crimes committed here are regulated/judged by Irish law.

    The doctor would be found guilty according to our current law, despite Irish Supreme Court and European Court of Human RIghts rulings.


  • #207
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    tony81 wrote: »
    God works in mysterious ways. ;)

    You are an absolutely disgusting human being.


  • #208
    seenitall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,734 ✭✭✭seenitall


    irishfeen wrote: »
    Dead right, it would be initially proved illegal by silly laws but the will of the people would eventually clear the doctor through the High Court/European Court.

    Eventually... but in the eventual cases that present, the eventual doctors, for lord knows what silly reason, are reluctant to act counter the laws of the land...


  • #209
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    hotmail.com wrote: »
    The point is clearly that the law is sexist towards women. Do you seriously not see that?

    I.E. if men were in a position to have children, abortion would be legalised centuries ago.

    No the law cannot be sexist in an instance where one gender is capable of an act that another gender is not.

    Giving birth/carrying a child to term/aborting a child would fall under that status.


  • #210
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,685 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    tolosenc wrote: »
    I can scarcely imagine what further horrors the Catholic church can inflict on this country. Rape and abuse of countless children, psychological abuse and shaming of women... They are a disgrace to the Christian faith. I'm a tolerant person, but any such organisation should be permanently banished from this country.

    Tolosenc, it's the govt. not the church to blame here. The church lost their influence in this matter when the public voted for limited abortion twenty years ago.

    The govt. haven't implemented the wishes of the people

    They are the disgrace, not the Church in this instance.


  • Advertisement
  • #211
    hotmail.com
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,451 ✭✭✭✭hotmail.com


    Stheno wrote: »
    No the law cannot be sexist in an instance where one gender is capable of an act that another gender is not.

    Giving birth/carrying a child to term/aborting a child would fall under that status.

    I really don't think you see what point I'm making regarding the sexist law that prohibits women from having an abortion in this country. My thesis is that if men were the ones that had children, then abortion would be legalised ages ago.

    There is a clear attitude that women do not have the right to decide how they should deal with their own bodies among some people in this country, including yourself. Some people, including yourself, believe that women should have a baby against their wishes. Pretty shameful.


Advertisement