Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

mud · 14-11-2012 05:06PM

Pro-Choice.

Choice is the operative word.

If you don't want one. Don't have one.

kylith · 14-11-2012 05:07PM

Why do YD keep bringing this up/

It is also vitally important to acknowledge at this time that Ireland, without induced abortion, is recognised by the UN and World Health Organisation as a world leader in protecting women in pregnancy and is safer than places like Britain and Holland where abortion is widely available."

It sounds like they're trying to say that if abortion were legalised we'd suddenly stop caring whether women lived or died, or that we'd actively start killing them. Just because abortion would be legislated for doesn't mean that the rate of maternal death would skyrocket, the two things are completely overrated.

Nonoperational · 14-11-2012 05:08PM

mhge wrote: »

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.

And that's the big thing that needs to be investigated. Because it seems pretty clear that terminations can occur and do occur if they will save a life. If in this case something different happened then it's a whole different ball game and it needs to never happen again.

Yes, if she had a termination earlier then maybe she wouldn't have developed septicaemia at all... but under currant interpretation of the constitution would that be legal? Was her life in real danger when she didn't have the septicaemia? What does "real and substantial risk" even mean? It's not defined. That's why there needs to be a clear law.

I agree with you btw, if the fetus was not viable then it would seem obvious what should be done.

ilovesleep · 14-11-2012 05:13PM

This news has gone international which is good news because hopefully it will force those in the dail to give us a much need refrendum on something that will help bring Ireland into the 21st century.

RIP Savita and condolences to her family.

HellFireClub · 14-11-2012 05:18PM

mud wrote: »

Pro-Choice.

Choice is the operative word.

If you don't want one. Don't have one.

When we can get an opinion from the healthy child who will be killed, I'll run with your logic. Until that day, there is no such thing as pro-choice, because we can't consult with one of the parties involved, who is in no position to state what their choice would be, so until then, you'll be pro-abortion in my language.

Min · 14-11-2012 05:20PM

She went to the hospital on the Sunday but did not receive any antibiotics until the Tuesday.

Two days with what basically an open womb, it seems like the problem here is negligence rather than anything else.

Professor John Bonnar, then chairman of Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which represents 90%-95% of Ireland's obstetricians and gynaecologists, explained the situation to an all party report to the Oireachtas as follows:
'In current obstetrical practice rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention is required at a stage in pregnancy when there will be little or no prospect for the survival of the baby, due to extreme immaturity. In these exceptional situations failure to intervene may result in the death of both the mother and baby. We consider that there is a fundamental difference between abortion carried out with the intention of taking the life of the baby, for example for social reasons, and the unavoidable death of the baby resulting from essential treatment to protect the life of the mother.'

'We have never regarded these interventions as abortion. It would never cross an obstetrician’s mind that intervening in a case of pre-eclampsia, cancer of the cervix or ectopic pregnancy is abortion. They are not abortion as far as the professional is concerned, these are medical treatments that are essential to protect the life of the mother. So when we interfere in the best interests of protecting a mother, and not allowing her to succumb, and we are faced with a foetus that dies, we don’t regard that as something that we have, as it were, achieved by an abortion.

Abortion in the professional view to my mind is something entirely different. It is actually intervening, usually in a normal pregnancy, to get rid of the pregnancy, to get rid of the foetus. That is what we would consider the direct procurement of an abortion. In other words, it’s an unwanted baby and, therefore, you intervene to end its life. That has never been a part of the practice of Irish obstetrics and I hope it never will be.'

krudler · 14-11-2012 05:21PM

HellFireClub wrote: »

When we can get an opinion from the healthy child who will be killed, I'll run with your logic. Until that day, there is no such thing as pro-choice, because we can't consult with one of the parties involved, who is in no position to state what their choice would be, so until then, you'll be pro-abortion in my language.

So you're anti-choice? Other people should live by your morals and not be able to make their own decisions?

ash23 · 14-11-2012 05:21PM

HellFireClub wrote: »

When we can get an opinion from the healthy child who will be killed, I'll run with your logic. Until that day, there is no such thing as pro-choice, because we can't consult with one of the parties involved, who is in no position to state what their choice would be, so until then, you'll be pro-abortion in my language.

Very few people are pro-abortion. The term is pro-choice and there is a massive difference between the two.

SafeSurfer · 14-11-2012 05:22PM

It is possible to be pro abortion and pro life at the same time. The existing life I believe should take precedence over the non viable life.

Min · 14-11-2012 05:24PM

ilovesleep wrote: »

This news has gone international which is good news because hopefully it will force those in the dail to give us a much need refrendum on something that will help bring Ireland into the 21st century.

RIP Savita and condolences to her family.

21.4 of Ireland's guide to professional conduct and ethics for registered medical practitioners:

'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 was no excuse, legislation is not needed. It is people need to follow what is there which would have allowed the unborn to be removed, but it is the lack of antibiotics which most likely killed her.

Madam_X · 14-11-2012 05:25PM

HellFireClub wrote: »

When we can get an opinion from the healthy child who will be killed, I'll run with your logic. Until that day, there is no such thing as pro-choice, because we can't consult with one of the parties involved, who is in no position to state what their choice would be, so until then, you'll be pro-abortion in my language.

In the case of early termination, the *potential* child. Why "healthy"?

Andy-Pandy · 14-11-2012 05:26PM

I have to say that i am ashamed to be Irish today. I hope whoever her doctor was is struck off at the very least. May she RIP.

robman60 · 14-11-2012 05:29PM

Firstly, my condolences to her family and friends, this is a terrible tragedy. I believe she actually worked in a business in my home town.

The fact that I'm pro-life doesn't mean I think events should have unfolded as they did. The pro-life thing to do in this situation is to save one of the two lives at stake when one (the unborn child) was beyond recovery. I believe most pro-lifers (me included) agree that the correct legislation would allow the unpreventable tragedy of the child's death in this scenario, as it was either one or both, and sadly in this case it's lead to both.

Also, I'd appreciate if people would stop branding anyone who's pro-life as a religious fundamentalist, as I'm certainly not. It means I'm opposed to abortion on demand. It definitely does not mean that I think this women's case should have been dealt with as it was.

RIP Savita

spank_inferno · 14-11-2012 05:33PM

robman60 wrote: »

Also, I'd appreciate if people would stop branding anyone who's pro-life as a religious fundamentalist, as I'm certainly not. It means I'm opposed to abortion on demand. It definitely does not mean that I think this women's case should have been dealt with as it was.

RIP Savita

Good post Robman.

I think the majority of us posting on this tragedy wouldn't want to compare someone who is anti-abortion being a religious zealot.

(though those types certainly are out there).

ibarelycare · 14-11-2012 05:34PM

HellFireClub wrote: »

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.

You've used this phrase at least twice in this thread. How on earth are those who support giving women a choice on what to do with their bodies "loo laa"? Yes, provision for this has been rejected by the country...20 years ago. Since then the country has become a lot more liberal, and people are rejecting the Catholic Church and its teachings and opinions in a steady stream.

If people believe in something so strongly, why shouldn't they keep fighting for it?

IMO it's the Youth Defence and staunch right wing fundies who are much more "loo laa" than anyone else.

Ellis Dee · 14-11-2012 05:37PM

gimmick wrote: »

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

Highly unlikely, because that is not the Indian way, but the shabby manner in which this young woman's life was wasted to pander to the foibles of religious maniacs will certainly not do much to enhance the image of Ireland in a country where there has traditionally been a lot of goodwill towards us.

Here is a fairly typical comment from a reader in the Deccan Herald:
[PHP]"It brings shame to the Catholics who have brought death to an innocent mother in the name of the religion."[/PHP]

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

The obstacles that the so-called pro-life zealots have placed in the way of legislation being enacted in line with the wishes of the Irish people and the judgement of the Supreme Court are the equivalent of a defeated army poisoning wells as it retreats. They know the have lost the war, but resort to every delaying tactic, every act of mischief. And now they have sacrificed a young Indian woman on the altar of their twisted dogma.

Morag · 14-11-2012 05:40PM

ilovesleep wrote: »

This news has gone international which is good news because hopefully it will force those in the dail to give us a much need refrendum on something that will help bring Ireland into the 21st century.

RIP Savita and condolences to her family.

We don't need another referendum we need legislation.

Dodge · 14-11-2012 05:42PM

ibarelycare wrote: »

Yes, provision for this has been rejected by the country...20 years ago. .

Actually what they rejected 20 years ago was specifically this

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 last line went against the Supreme Court ruling in the X case and as such nearly all pro-choice groups lobbied for a no vote.

Likewise ten years later the people voted NOT to 'tighten' the ban on abortion (in terms of suicide)

There's been 4 refenda on abortion rights since the 1983 ban, and the pro-choice lobby has 'won' them all

Madam_X · 14-11-2012 05:42PM

HellFireClub wrote: »

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.

Wow. Yes, that's it - there's no real substance to it, it's just people wanting to show how left-wing they are. You're using the language of The Sun ffs.

So dismissive of the genuinely desperate situations some pregnant women find themselves in - you obviously don't think about them too much.

ilovesleep · 14-11-2012 05:47PM

ibarelycare wrote: »

You've used this phrase at least twice in this thread. How on earth are those who support giving women a choice on what to do with their bodies "loo laa"? Yes, provision for this has been rejected by the country...20 years ago. Since then the country has become a lot more liberal, and people are rejecting the Catholic Church and its teachings and opinions in a steady stream.

If people believe in something so strongly, why shouldn't they keep fighting for it?

IMO it's the Youth Defence and staunch right wing fundies who are much more "loo laa" than anyone else.

The same catholic church where condoms were viewed as bad for some reason or another and thus illegal until when? 1980

The same church that viewed homosexuality as bad and sick and thus being gay was illegal.

The catholic church and institution is rotten.

HellFireClub · 14-11-2012 05:47PM

ash23 wrote: »

Very few people are pro-abortion. The term is pro-choice and there is a massive difference between the two.

There is no difference in my opinion, not when you take out the people who agree that abortion is sometimes necessary to save a woman's life, as is the tragic case under discussion here. I agree with abortion being permitted where a woman's life is at risk (as was the case here or so it appears), but I do not agree that the idiots that occupy the left in this country should be allowed direct a debate with sane and rational people on this subject of abortion, about this apparent abundance of mothers out there who will commit suicide if they are not allowed have an abortion.

This is what Labour in this country want and this is what those in the United Left Alliance want, they want abortion on demand for any reason or no reason at all. A lot of people in this country, regardless of their religious persuasion, don't want to see that kind of service being offered in this country and have stated so in several referendums.

robman60 · 14-11-2012 05:48PM

Wait, am I overlooking something here?

Wasn't this ignorance of the law on the doctors part? As far as I know, this is from the doctor rules of practice:

'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.'

Isn't this what's currently allowed? I think you guys may be missing this, but I'm pretty sure that's legally permitted. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Madam_X · 14-11-2012 05:50PM

Left-wing = insane and irrational apparently.

And all whose politics are left-leaning are ULA types.

ash23 · 14-11-2012 05:51PM

HellFireClub wrote: »

There is no difference in my opinion, not when you take out the people who agree that abortion is sometimes necessary to save a woman's life, as is the tragic case under discussion here. I agree with abortion being permitted where a woman's life is at risk (as was the case here or so it appears), but I do not agree that the idiots that occupy the left in this country should be allowed direct a debate with sane and rational people on this subject of abortion, about this apparent abundance of mothers out there who will commit suicide if they are not allowed have an abortion.

This is what Labour in this country want and this is what those in the United Left Alliance want, they want abortion on demand for any reason or no reason at all. A lot of people in this country, regardless of their religious persuasion, don't want to see that kind of service being offered in this country and have stated so in several referendums.

That's your opinion but as someone who is very much pro-choice and not pro-abortion, you are wrong.

I would also say that the idiots that occupy the right in this country should not be allowed direct a debate with sane and rational people on this subject of abortion, about this apparent abundance of mothers out there who will have an abortion every other month should abortion become legal. There are extremists on every side not just the side that happens to oppose you.

HellFireClub · 14-11-2012 05:51PM

Madam_X wrote: »

Wow. Yes, that's it - there's no real substance to it, it's just people wanting to show how left-wing they are. You're using the language of The Sun ffs.

So dismissive of the genuinely desperate situations some pregnant women find themselves in - you obviously don't think about them too much.

Nonsense, I believe the woman who is the subject of this thread should have been allowed have a procedure in this state that saved her life without any politics or rubbish getting involved.

ZeRoY · 14-11-2012 05:53PM

where there is a real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health)

What sort of mad statement is that. I do miss France sometimes. Retarded laws.

Madam_X · 14-11-2012 05:53PM

You're the one bringing in politics (in a very Fox News manner).

Angie_Baby · 14-11-2012 05:53PM

Ellis Dee wrote: »

Highly unlikely, because that is not the Indian way, but the shabby manner in which this young woman's life was wasted to pander to the foibles of religious maniacs will certainly not do much to enhance the image of Ireland in a country where there has traditionally been a lot of goodwill towards us.

Here is a fairly typical comment from a reader in the Deccan Herald:
[PHP]"It brings shame to the Catholics who have brought death to an innocent mother in the name of the religion."[/PHP]

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

The obstacles that the so-called pro-life zealots have placed in the way of legislation being enacted in line with the wishes of the Irish people and the judgement of the Supreme Court are the equivalent of a defeated army poisoning wells as it retreats. They know the have lost the war, but resort to every delaying tactic, every act of mischief. And now they have sacrificed a young Indian woman on the altar of their twisted dogma.

but think how many 10s of 1,000s of lives they have saved.

ZeRoY · 14-11-2012 05:54PM

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Well done to the scum in Youth Defence, they have blood on their hands.

But dont you know they are Pro Lif... oh no wait.

14-11-2012 05:54PM

HellFireClub wrote: »

This is what Labour in this country want and this is what those in the United Left Alliance want, they want abortion on demand for any reason or no reason at all.

Is anybody demanding legislation to allow for a viable foetus to be aborted in the third trimester? I doubt it. Although I do not associate with any of the left organisations, I am on the left (not that it's in any way relevant to whether I'm pro-choice), and I would be willing to debate abortion with you.

Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Comments