Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

billybudd · 14-11-2012 04:02PM

gpf101 wrote: »

Without knowing the facts of the case it's hard to imagine the doctor stood back and knowingly let her die. If that's the case it's truly shameful. Once again a controversial piece of legislation is ignored due to fear of loosing votes.

For what it's worth, if it was clear that terminating the pregnancy (which had no chance of survival apparently) would save the life from day one then I'm pretty sure many many doctors would have done so.The supreme court is pretty clear on the matter, however having no concrete legislation in place does not make it easy.

Maybe it's been quoted already but the ruling from the supreme court was

"the proper test to be applied is that if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible, having regard to the true interpretation of Article 40, s.3, sub-s. 3 of the Constitution (Finlay CJ, [37])"

As was mention, the Irish medical Council guidelines (I know they're guidelines not laws) also back this up.

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 assess- ment of any such risk in light of the clinical research on this issue.

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.

There are a few questions that are really important and I'm sure they're the main focus of investigation...

Was the risk to the life of the mother clear and apparent, or what is the opinion of the medical practitioner that the risk was not as great as it ultimately proved.

Was the septicaemia present/diagnosed during the 3 days? The fact that blood cultures were taken and anti-biotics initiated after the termination suggest to me that maybe it wasn't.

While in hindsight it looks like a cut and dried case of an abortion saving the life, I would be very interested in the details. Would it be possible that the doctor was monitoring the patient and although in pain, decided that this was not necessarily extremely serious or life threatening and when miscarriage would occur as the doctor suggested it would, that the mother would be OK physically and no abortion would have been necessary? Did the septicaemia come on suddenly and unexpectedly after the miscarriage?

Personally I think that legislation needs to be brought forward to give women the right to choose, and it needs to be brought in ASAP. I'd just question the posts that state that the the doctor stood back and allowed the patient to die when we don't really know all the facts.

And that is really the problem, especially if you flip the case and the doctor did do the abortion and afterwards was prosecuted for man slaughter of a lving being as the baby still had a heart beat. the bolded bit is really at the heart of this case.

ilovesleep · 14-11-2012 04:02PM

I'm pro choice in that I think abortion should be legalised and no body's views and opinions on abortion should be forced upon others. Legalise it and make it for to those who may need it or want it.

It's horrific that woman died and even more horrific catholism was mentioned. The catholic church did so much damage to this country and to think they still have a hold on us on many issues such as abortion and entuasia (sp?) is sickening. The catholic church is a fcuking abusive cult and that's all it is. Preeching about doing good yet turn around and do bad. The people who support it are for the most part fcuking hypocrites - up in fcuking mass every Sunday yet given half a chance they wouldn't do a good turn for you. They wouldn't cross the road to piss on you if you were on fire. Just this morning myself and my sister were talking. I never hid the fact here on boards that I have an Irish mammy - that's she idolises her sons and her daughters are b1tches. We were saying anyways with the abuse that she threw at us, sheer sexism included, if the madenlin laudries were open we would have been dumped in one.

Why have kids if you don't want them? Holy catholic Ireland won't allow abortion and makes it a shameful act. Why have kids and raise them if you don't want them? The holy catholic neighbours will be talking if you give them away like animals. Much better to keep them and abuse them.

The holy catholic church is for abuse and abuse only and that's all it's for.

Enda Kenny and his mighty words to the Vatican in aug 2011. Cheaps fcuking words followed with no action.

ibarelycare · 14-11-2012 04:03PM

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Now it's made the Indian papers. Here's an example from her local daily, the Deccan Herald, which is published in Bengaluru, the capital of her home state of Karnataka (undelining mine):

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/291923/karnataka-woman-dies-being-refused.html

Of course it has made the Indian papers. It's made news world wide. There have been two separate threads on the front page of Reddit about it for the past 6 hours at least, so plenty of Americans will be waking up to it as well.

General Zod · 14-11-2012 04:03PM

Sorcha16 wrote: »

This charming individual certainly seems to think so:

I'll say it also.

Abortion should be safe and available in the 32 counties.

Sorcha16 · 14-11-2012 04:05PM

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

It´s a good point and relevant, whether you agree with the point or not. He wasn´t disrespectful in expressing his opinion. It seems thus unfair to ironically label him a ´charming individual´ just because you disagree with him

I find it inherently disrespectful to condone abortion on demand Lee, if that's ok and on that basis consider it a pretty ridiculous point actually.

For one, I'd like to know how Brain Stroking would go about differentiating between who is 'mentally capable' enough to make decisions 'as to their own body' (??) and who is not.

Naive at best and presumptuous all round to be honest.

Abortion in medical circumstances and specific instances of unwanted pregnancy, yes. On demand, no

Zulu · 14-11-2012 04:06PM

bruschi wrote: »

I dont think anyone on this thread has ever said it should be abortions for all, despite some trying to play up that they are.

...looks like there are plenty of poster saying just that. I trust you are happy to retract that point now? Perhaps now you have a little bit more of an understanding of our position? (although clearly I don't expect you to agree with it)

ash23 · 14-11-2012 04:06PM

General Zod wrote: »

I'll say it also.

Abortion should be safe and available in the 32 counties.

I agree but at the moment would be happy with the starting point of abortions being available for women whose pregnancies are non-viable.

We wouldn't put an animal through what that poor woman went through. It's a disgrace.

bruschi · 14-11-2012 04:07PM

Zulu wrote: »

What point did I miss previously? Care to point it out??

There is a problem, clearly, because a significant portion of our society are against abortion on demand, and do not want to see it introduced.

Why would "safe clinics" be required? Hospitals are where one goes to have medical care where their live is at real risk.

the point being that the pro choice campaigns state that no abortion is right.

the point that the vast majority on here, and myself, are not talking about abortions on demand, so I fail to see why there should be a problem. with regards to this specific case, abortions on demand is a completely serperate issue, and I still dont see people clamouring for that. The vast majority are talking specifically about medical conditions where the mothers life is in danger. abortions on demand should not be a factor in allowing medically advised abortions.

safe clinics are better equipped to deal with not just the termination, but the psychological problems that can ensue when a woman loses a baby to save her own life. just because women have abortions, does not necessarily mean everything will be fine once its done. Yes, hospitals can also provide that service, but a specialised clinic would be best served for the purposes of treatment. Either way, it makes no odds, it would be a least a step in the right direction if hospitals were able to do this.

Lyaiera · 14-11-2012 04:08PM

Zulu wrote: »

...looks like there are plenty of poster saying just that. I trust you are happy to retract that point now? Perhaps now you have a little bit more of an understanding of our position? (although clearly I don't expect you to agree with it)

What does abortions for all have to do with your position? You're against savings someone life because of something totally unrelated?

bruschi · 14-11-2012 04:10PM

Zulu wrote: »

...looks like there are plenty of poster saying just that. I trust you are happy to retract that point now? Perhaps now you have a little bit more of an understanding of our position? (although clearly I don't expect you to agree with it)

if you want me to retract I will. And I see other posters have since said they want abortions available all over. But again, that is not the issue in this case. this wasnt a woman who wanted it on demand. it shouldnt be a case of if you allow some, it will mean the whole thing falls down, regardless of either of our positions on it.

Lyaiera · 14-11-2012 04:13PM

bruschi wrote: »

if you want me to retract I will. And I see other posters have since said they want abortions available all over. But again, that is not the issue in this case. this wasnt a woman who wanted it on demand. it shouldnt be a case of if you allow some, it will mean the whole thing falls down, regardless of either of our positions on it.

I think it's because of the famous "give them an inch" precedent in law. If they legalise abortions for medical necessities the "give them an inch" precedent legally means I'm allowed kill anything up to toddler age, and kick any child in junior or senior infants in the face.

Zulu · 14-11-2012 04:14PM

bruschi wrote: »

the point being that the pro choice campaigns state that no abortion is right.

I didn't miss that point. I amn't part of those campaigns. I've nothing to do with them. Why should I answer for them?

the point that the vast majority on here, and myself, are not talking about abortions on demand,

I don't think it's fair to say the "vast majority" are not talking about abortions on demand. A significant amount of posters have come out and said that's exactly what they are looking for.

so I fail to see why there should be a problem.

Fair enough: if you fail to recognise those posters who've come out and said they want abortion on demand; if you choose to ignore them, it would be difficult to see where the problem lies. However, burying your head in the sand isn't worth much.

with regards to this specific case, abortions on demand is a completely serperate issue, and I still dont see people clamouring for that.

Read the posts on this thread. You're burying your head in the sand.

The vast majority are talking specifically about medical conditions where the mothers life is in danger.

And I think (trolls aside) we're all in agreement on that point.

abortions on demand should not be a factor in allowing medically advised abortions.

They shouldn't be, but sadly, as long as "pro-choice" campaigners strive for abortion on demand, they always will be.

LeeHoffmann · 14-11-2012 04:14PM

I find it inherently disrespectful to condone abortion on demand Lee, if that's ok and on that basis consider it a pretty ridiculous point actually.

no let´s be clear here. You don´t like his opinion. You can label his opinion disrespectful on the ground that you don´t like it, but he did not express himself in an offensive or disrespectful way - he did not disrespect you. On the contrary, you disrespected him by ironically labeling him a ´charming individual´.

For one, I'd like to know how Brain Stroking would go about differentiating between who is 'mentally capable' enough to make decisions 'as to their own body' (??) and who is not.

He didn´t differentiate - perhaps you misread his post. He was making the point that adults are mentally capable beings and have a right to make decisions about their own body. Clearly people do have that right so the point is relevant. Whether they have the right to make decisions about the bodies within their bodies is a further point

Zulu · 14-11-2012 04:17PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

What does abortions for all have to do with your position?

Please read the thread Lyaiera, I've posted my position.

You're against savings someone life because of something totally unrelated?

Nope, I never once said that. :rolleyes:

Again, please read the thread.

bruschi wrote: »

if you want me to retract I will. And I see other posters have since said they want abortions available all over. But again, that is not the issue in this case. this wasnt a woman who wanted it on demand. it shouldnt be a case of if you allow some, it will mean the whole thing falls down, regardless of either of our positions on it.

Yeah, I heard you. But sadly it does.

If we could just get the urgent medical cases sorted, everyone would be better off, this woman would be alive, and her poor husband wouldn't have lost his whole family in one tragic blow.

gimmick · 14-11-2012 04:18PM

I wonder will India organise a boycott of Ireland for our countries murder of this innocent woman???

Zulu · 14-11-2012 04:19PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I think it's because of the famous "give them an inch" precedent in law. If they legalise abortions for medical necessities the "give them an inch" precedent legally means I'm allowed kill anything up to toddler age, and kick any child in junior or senior infants in the face.

Yeah! Productive & topical. What input. Clearly this nugget of wisdom will progress the conversation into new & challenging grounds. :rolleyes:

Lyaiera · 14-11-2012 04:20PM

Zulu wrote: »

They shouldn't be, but sadly, as long as "pro-choice" campaigners strive for abortion on demand, they always will be.

THOSE EVIL BASTARDS! I knew it was their fault! They're for abortions for all EXCEPT when they're medically necessary. They're so trixy! :mad:

ejmaztec · 14-11-2012 04:22PM

ibarelycare wrote: »

Of course it has made the Indian papers. It's made news world wide. There have been two separate threads on the front page of Reddit about it for the past 6 hours at least, so plenty of Americans will be waking up to it as well.

The same place where one or two abortion clinics got blown up. I wouldn't expect universal outrage from that neck of the woods.

revz · 14-11-2012 04:23PM

Regardless of if people are "abortion for all" or "abortion for some" is not the point of this.
The topic on issue here is that people want it stated in law that a termination of pregnancy can be carried out if the mother is at risk of losing her life, as has happened in this case.
Stop nit-picking on this abortion-on-demand nonsense, that is for another day.
I'm pretty sure everyone on the "pro-choice" side would be happy with a referendum on the scenario I said above and that scenario alone, regardless of how "severely" pro-choice they are (for want of a better term).
It needs to be introduced to stop this rare occurrence from ever happening again.
RIP Savita

Nonoperational · 14-11-2012 04:26PM

gimmick wrote: »

I wonder will India organise a boycott of Ireland for our countries murder of this innocent woman???

Can I just ask how you can call this murder?

Are you saying the doctors knew from the start that she would develop septicaemia and die (which would be manslaughter) and ignored it?.

Are you saying somebody planned the whole thing and injected her with E.Coli while in hospital (which would be murder)?

What % of these cases end up like this? What were the chances of her miscarrying herself and being physically OK after it?

Did the doctors know that there was a real risk of death if they did nothing? Or did the situation take a suddon nasty unexpected turn?

Was it just a dinosaur of a doctor who adopted a position that most wouldn't?

I don't agree with what went on, and my views on the matter are strongly leaning towards pro-choice, but really? Murder? Just too many questions...

bruschi · 14-11-2012 04:30PM

Zulu wrote: »

I didn't miss that point. I amn't part of those campaigns. I've nothing to do with them. Why should I answer for them?

I don't think it's fair to say the "vast majority" are not talking about abortions on demand. A significant amount of posters have come out and said that's exactly what they are looking for.

Fair enough: if you fail to recognise those posters who've come out and said they want abortion on demand; if you choose to ignore them, it would be difficult to see where the problem lies. However, burying your head in the sand isn't worth much.
Read the posts on this thread. You're burying your head in the sand.

And I think (trolls aside) we're all in agreement on that point.

They shouldn't be, but sadly, as long as "pro-choice" campaigners strive for abortion on demand, they always will be.

fari enough, and at least some on both sides can have civil debates on the matter. I'm not sure though how it could perceived that I'm burying my head in the sand, but in any case, it doesnt really bother me if you think that.

with regards to the last point though, I really dont get that viewpoint, and I know it may not be yours, but I can not understand how pro life campaigns will still fight for no abortions at all just because they are afraid that if medical abortions get passed, then it opens the gates. Surely if pro life is the agenda, then they need to see that it could in some cases be a viable option to abort. Again, I'm not adressing this at you as you have made your case known, I just dont get this argument. Its like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

Zulu · 14-11-2012 04:48PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

THOSE EVIL BASTARDS! I knew it was their fault! They're for abortions for all EXCEPT when they're medically necessary. They're so trixy! :mad:

Yeah, again: productive. :rolleyes:

bruschi wrote: »

fari enough, and at least some on both sides can have civil debates on the matter. I'm not sure though how it could perceived that I'm burying my head in the sand, but in any case, it doesnt really bother me if you think that.

Apologies Bruschi, you are not burying your head in the sand. That was in reference to your position (that a vast majority were not looking for abortion on demand) prior to your acknowledgement otherwise.

Again, I'm not adressing this at you as you have made your case known, I just dont get this argument. Its like cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I don't much get it either! But then I don't get how some people are so adamant that it's only a womans choice! Like the child doesn't exist, or that the fathers couldn't care/aren't entitled to care about the welfare of their children.

Lyaiera · 14-11-2012 04:50PM

Zulu wrote: »

Yeah, again: productive. :rolleyes:

I think it's extremely productive to highlight how hilarious what you're saying is.

HellFireClub · 14-11-2012 04:53PM

revz wrote: »

Regardless of if people are "abortion for all" or "abortion for some" is not the point of this.
The topic on issue here is that people want it stated in law that a termination of pregnancy can be carried out if the mother is at risk of losing her life, as has happened in this case.
Stop nit-picking on this abortion-on-demand nonsense, that is for another day.
I'm pretty sure everyone on the "pro-choice" side would be happy with a referendum on the scenario I said above and that scenario alone, regardless of how "severely" pro-choice they are (for want of a better term).
It needs to be introduced to stop this rare occurrence from ever happening again.
RIP Savita

Well it's a relevant point in my opinion because this tragedy will be thrown out there now to argue as to why abortion isn't legal here in any case where a mother chooses, as is already happening on the thread. Provision for this has been rejected by the people of this country, but yet we still have the left wing loo laa brigade who keep chipping away at it year after year after year, with the "my body my choice" argument.

Zulu · 14-11-2012 04:53PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

I think it's extremely productive to highlight how hilarious what you're saying is.

...by displaying your ignorance to the salient point? Interesting.

I guess who needs a conversation when you can have an audience (of one at least)?

Lyaiera · 14-11-2012 04:55PM

Zulu wrote: »

...by displaying your ignorance to the salient point? Interesting.

I guess who needs a conversation when you can have an audience (of one at least)?

The salient point being that people won't support something they believe in because other people who support it have other views they disagree with.

You're right, if I take that kind of attitude I could have a huge following.

hatrickpatrick · 14-11-2012 04:56PM

Conservatives support the right to life - until such time as you are born.

Zulu · 14-11-2012 05:01PM

Lyaiera wrote: »

The salient point being that people won't support something they believe in

close, but not quite.

because other people who support it have other views they disagree with.

...it's almost like you are trying not to get it.

Are you ready? See if you can keep up now. I don't support abortion, I do accept that it should be available in certain circumstances (namely if the mothers life is at risk).

Lyaiera · 14-11-2012 05:03PM

Zulu wrote: »

close, but not quite.
...it's almost like you are trying not to get it.

Are you ready? See if you can keep up now. I don't support abortion, I do accept that it should be available in certain circumstances (namely if the mothers life is at risk).

Zulu wrote: »

They shouldn't be, but sadly, as long as "pro-choice" campaigners strive for abortion on demand, they always will be.

Because you know, it's terrible to agree with someone on one thing and not another thing.

strandroad · 14-11-2012 05:05PM

gpf101 wrote: »

Can I just ask how you can call this murder?

Are you saying the doctors knew from the start that she would develop septicaemia and die (which would be manslaughter) and ignored it?.

From the timeline the Irish Times posted it seems that she was showing signs of septicaemia at least a day before her foetus's heartbeat stopped. She could have better chance if she received termination then; at this stage she has been admitted and monitored for a while.

Had she received termination earlier, right after she was admitted when it was established her foetus was inviable, she probably would not have developed septicaemia at all.

I won't call it murder, but clearly some act of refusal of help with fatal consequences took place.

Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Comments