Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

irishfeen · 14-11-2012 03:23AM

Stheno wrote: »

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.

seenitall wrote: »

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...

Yes so eventually any doctor would be cleared of all charges as to the will of the people in the many referendums held, I know it would be a brave doctor to take on the state but surely any life is worth saving if deep down they know in their heart it is the right thing to do (As to the 1992 amendment - the will of the people)

MagicSean · 14-11-2012 03:28AM

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.

A pregnant man would.

And according to the last census this is a Catholic country. A look at our laws on same sex marriage an abortion would also support that view.

jill_valentine · 14-11-2012 03:28AM

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.

Sexist may be the wrong word in the strictest terms, but the poster's point is clear.

While situations like this are permitted to happen, it is the expressed attitude of the Irish state that women are to understand that their rights over their own life, health and bodies are subjective in a way that those of men are not.

Men cannot get pregnant, so their lives and bodies are unquestionably their own. But women can, and so their sovereignty over themselves is guaranteed only until pregnancy, in which case, suddenly a bunch of strangers get to make decisions about them that could potentially result in their death.

seenitall · 14-11-2012 03:28AM

irishfeen wrote: »

Yes so eventually any doctor would be cleared of all charges as to the will of the people in the many referendums held, I know it would be a brave doctor to take on the state but surely any life is worth saving if deep down they know in their heart it is the right thing to do (As to the 1992 amendment - the will of the people)

I think you missed my point there by a mile, irishfeen. But never mind, it's late and I have to go to sleep.

My thoughts are with the young woman's family, RIP.

Mods, sorry about the LOLs and sarcasm, got carried away with anger (and it was on her behalf).

endacl · 14-11-2012 03:28AM

Condolences to the poor woman's husband on the loss of his wife and child. A little ashamed of my nation on reading this. Time to sort this sh1te out once and for all. It won't affect me, but it might affect my sister.

hotmail.com · 14-11-2012 03:30AM

MagicSean wrote: »

A pregnant man would.

And according to the last census this is a Catholic country. A look at our laws on same sex marriage an abortion would also support that view.

We are a republic where all people are treated equally. I'm sorry but are you being deliberately silly? Just because there is a majority of Catholics in the country doesn't make it a Catholic country. There is a separation of church and state.

Stheno · 14-11-2012 03:33AM

hotmail.com wrote: »

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.

Actually since I was 19 and voted for the first time (and travelled for two hours to vote as I was in college) I have always believed in the right of women to have an abortion.

I personally wouldn't have one under most circumstances, but can imagine ones where I would

That right is precious to me.
Your argument is a complete strawman on the grounds of gender bias, who knows? If men were the ones to carry children women might be more dominant in society from day one.

Ridiculous argument. The fact this is a very conservative country that has allowed it's government to ignore a mandate from a majority of voters to allow abortion in limited circumstances which may have saved this woman's life is of far more import to me than your silly gender argument.

irishfeen wrote: »

Yes so eventually any doctor would be cleared of all charges as to the will of the people in the many referendums held, I know it would be a brave doctor to take on the state but surely any life is worth saving if deep down they know in their heart it is the right thing to do (As to the 1992 amendment - the will of the people)

And after years in prison and ostracisation from their profession the doctor is declared innocent, what do they do? I'd rather work within the system, and use it to garner support and action, as this article seems to be doing, then ruin my life.

In fact if we do ever see our wishes from 1992 enacted in law, I'd like it named after Savita Halappanavar. The Savita law would remind us of what happened in this country as a result of our government ignoring our wishes for years and personalise it too.

Stheno · 14-11-2012 03:35AM

MagicSean wrote: »

A pregnant man would.

And according to the last census this is a Catholic country. A look at our laws on same sex marriage an abortion would also support that view.

Just because the majority of people here are Catholic, does not mean this is a a country ruled by Catholics, at last count we have Jews, Protestants and agnostics/atheists in our parliament.

Personally I think we are a backward country and far to slow to address social issues.

FanadMan · 14-11-2012 03:37AM

I'm going to bed crying! My condolences and love to the family xx

hotmail.com · 14-11-2012 03:39AM

Stheno wrote: »

Actually since I was 19 and voted for the first time (and travelled for two hours to vote as I was in college) I have always believed in the right of women to have an abortion.

I personally wouldn't have one under most circumstances, but can imagine ones where I would

That right is precious to me.
Your argument is a complete strawman on the grounds of gender bias, who knows? If men were the ones to carry children women might be more dominant in society from day one.

Ridiculous argument. The fact this is a very conservative country that has allowed it's government to ignore a mandate from a majority of voters to allow abortion in limited circumstances which may have saved this woman's life is of far more import to me than your silly gender argument.

I was trying to demonstrate the clear sexist nature of the law because it clearly discriminates against WOMEN from deciding on the health of their own bodies.

No comparable law would ever be inflicted upon men, never.

irishfeen · 14-11-2012 03:39AM

seenitall wrote: »

I think you missed my point there by a mile, irishfeen. But never mind, it's late and I have to go to sleep..

Maybe so mate, I'm not an expert in law so don't be too hard on me ... It's hard to understand the whole thing.

Stheno · 14-11-2012 03:41AM

hotmail.com wrote: »

I was trying to demonstrate the clear sexist nature of the law because it clearly discriminates against WOMEN from deciding on the health of their own bodies.

No comparable law would ever be inflicted upon men, never.

IN most circumstances women have access to travel and information.

In the rare circumstance such as this, women are fecked due to the government not taking action.

Still boils down to government inaction, nothing more.

IF the right legislation was in place this woman would have lived, nothing to do with her gender, more government inactivity/ennui.

So your argument is a complete strawman.

Scottie Dundee · 14-11-2012 03:45AM

My advice to arrogant medical people everywhere is to start treating patients as human beings and try to cut down on the mistakes/negligence.

Stheno · 14-11-2012 03:47AM

Scottie Dundee wrote: »

My advice to arrogant medical people everywhere is to start treating patients as human beings and try to cut down on the mistakes/negligence.

My advice to them would be to be cognisant of the law in the country they work in, and in the case of an emergency have the legal team on standby and on your side.

hotmail.com · 14-11-2012 03:51AM

Stheno wrote: »

IN most circumstances women have access to travel and information.

In the rare circumstance such as this, women are fecked due to the government not taking action.

Still boils down to government inaction, nothing more.

IF the right legislation was in place this woman would have lived, nothing to do with her gender, more government inactivity/ennui.

So your argument is a complete strawman.

If abortion was legal, then this wouldn't happen. I don't understand what you mean by strawman.

Women should not have to rely on information and travel to decide what to do with their own bodies. What a completely ridiculous sexist put down to suggest they should be content with that. And only in "rare" circumstances is government inaction to blame. Pathetic.

The law needs to change entirely to allow abortion.

Sorcha16 · 14-11-2012 04:03AM

hotmail.com wrote: »

Women should not have to rely on information and travel to decide what to do with their own bodies. What a completely ridiculous sexist put down to suggest they should be content with that.

In an ideal world, we could all be trusted to make the right decisions and only use abortion in medical circumstances or as a last resort for an unwanted pregnancy.

Unfortunately, not all adults are responsible enough to deal with decisions of this magnitude. There are some women who view abortion as a means of contraception and if legalised, would freely avail of it without a second thought.

As the law must aim to be non-discriminatory, it caters to the lowest common denominator and unfortunately results in restricting choices for the rest of us.

FanadMan · 14-11-2012 04:08AM

Stheno wrote: »

My advice to them would be to be cognisant of the law in the country they work in, and in the case of an emergency have the legal team on standby and on your side.

How come that consultant isn't facing murder charges? He willfully let her die because "this is a Catholic country". I really hope this is brought up in the Dail - let them know what happens when the church helps run the laws of the land.

danger mouse · 14-11-2012 04:14AM

I still agree that abortion should be illegal. The rights of the unborn child should always be preserved. I can't comment on this case, like everyone else we don't know the full facts and can't make a full informed comment on this case.

hotmail.com · 14-11-2012 04:29AM

Sorcha16 wrote: »

In an ideal world, we could all be trusted to make the right decisions and only use abortion in medical circumstances or as a last resort for an unwanted pregnancy.

Unfortunately, not all adults are responsible enough to deal with decisions of this magnitude. There are some women who view abortion as a means of contraception and if legalised, would freely avail of it without a second thought.

As the law must aim to be non-discriminatory, it caters to the lowest common denominator and unfortunately results in restricting choices for the rest of us.

All I can say is what??

Women can make their own minds up if they want to have an abortion. Mentioning contraception etc is you just being judgmental and not dealing with the issue at all. The issue is a woman's right to choose the health of her own body.

It's too late for me to continue on any longer, but I have no idea what you mean about the law catering for the lowest common donominator. I can only assume that you are being once again judgmental in some warped way. Lowest common denominator. Seriously wtf?

hotmail.com · 14-11-2012 04:30AM

danger mouse wrote: »

I still agree that abortion should be illegal. The rights of the unborn child should always be preserved. I can't comment on this case, like everyone else we don't know the full facts and can't make a full informed comment on this case.

So why bother post?

FanadMan · 14-11-2012 04:31AM

danger mouse wrote: »

I still agree that abortion should be illegal. The rights of the unborn child should always be preserved. I can't comment on this case, like everyone else we don't know the full facts and can't make a full informed comment on this case.

But yet you still commented. To paraphrase The Simpsons......"Won't somebody please think of the mother"

Cookie_Monster · 14-11-2012 04:32AM

Sorcha16 wrote: »

There are some women who view abortion as a means of contraception and if legalised, would freely avail of it without a second thought.

and why shouldn't they?
do you feel a random clump of cells should have more right than a fully developed person?

danger mouse · 14-11-2012 04:33AM

hotmail.com wrote: »

So why bother post?

Because this is my opinion and I'm entitled to express it, how I see fit.

Sorcha16 · 14-11-2012 05:00AM

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

and why shouldn't they?
do you feel a random clump of cells should have more right than a fully developed person?

They shouldn't because there are a multitude of more humane ways to prevent pregnancy that don't involve a loss of life. I don't think that random clump of cells you refer to should be disposed of like yesterday's newspaper because the person growing them is too reckless to take other precautions.

As I've already said and will reiterate for you again, I think abortion should only be used in medical circumstances or as a last resort in unwanted pregnancy and absolutely not as a means of contraception.

In fact, to even suggest that abortion is acceptable as a contraceptive is just baffling

FanadMan · 14-11-2012 05:11AM

Sorcha16 wrote: »

They shouldn't because there are a multitude of more humane ways to prevent pregnancy that don't involve a loss of life. I don't think that random clump of cells you refer to should be disposed of like yesterday's newspaper because the person growing them is too reckless to take other precautions.

As I've already said and will reiterate for you again, I think abortion should only be used in medical circumstances or as a last resort in unwanted pregnancy and absolutely not as a means of contraception.

In fact, to even suggest that abortion is acceptable as a contraceptive is just baffling

If any circumstance could be classed as medical, and warranting a medical abortion, this was it. Obviously the doctor involved was covering his own behind to the detriment of his patient. Thought a doctors first concern is for the welfare of his patient.

danger mouse · 14-11-2012 05:14AM

Sorcha16 wrote: »

They shouldn't because there are a multitude of more humane ways to prevent pregnancy that don't involve a loss of life. I don't think that random clump of cells you refer to should be disposed of like yesterday's newspaper because the person growing them is too reckless to take other precautions.

As I've already said and will reiterate for you again, I think abortion should only be used in medical circumstances or as a last resort in unwanted pregnancy and absolutely not as a means of contraception.

In fact, to even suggest that abortion is acceptable as a contraceptive is just baffling

How can you say that. An unwanted pregnancy should not be a reason to abort a child. We need to fully protect the rights of the unborn child no matter what circumstances a women gets herself into, an abortion is not a life style choice. It is murder as far as I'm concerned. We fully need to protect the unborn as they have no voice and are the most vulnerable members of society.

whiteandlight · 14-11-2012 05:17AM

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

You got to love boards.ie dont you?
A person posts a story along with a screen shot of a newspaper, also states it was mentioned on a popular tv3 programe tonight .... Only to get met with accusations and proof of validation required

But yet the amount of "this happened to me today" threads in after hours are taken as fact :rolleyes:

Excuse me, the OP includes a blury picture with an unreadable article. Vincent Browne was not mentioned in the OP. a google search and a run of the rte news app threw up nothing but this boards.ie page. I think a bit of healthy scepticism was warranted in that case. Now there's more info I'm happy to believe it but I did go and check before questioning its validity.

banquo · 14-11-2012 05:18AM

FWIW, I think the doctor was lamenting that he couldn't terminate the pregnancy with the 'Catholic country' comment.

Sorcha16 · 14-11-2012 05:18AM

FanadMan wrote: »

If any circumstance could be classed as medical, and warranting a medical abortion, this was it.

I couldn't agree more

IsMiseLisa · 14-11-2012 05:22AM

Jesus Christ.

Selfish as this is to say, I hope something like this never happens to me.

I also hope this case sparks some kind of change. The fact she was Hindi will probably mean the outcry won't be near as large as if she'd been an Irish girl, but ****ing hell, the poor woman deserves some kind of justice! The pain she must have spent her last couple of days in (knowing both that she was miscarrying and possibly dying herself) coupled with agony of her symptoms...appalling!

Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Comments