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…2425272930…99

Comments

  • #782
    billybudd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭billybudd


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    What law exists that prevents the termination of a pregnancy in Ireland, viable or otherwise, where there is a risk to the life of the mother?


    The law that is ambiguous, that places the responsibilty on the Doctor and not the government with decision the he makes.


  • #783
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    Well in fairness, this debate is a wider debate than this thread and I'm personally SICK of left wing slags in this country like the kind in the ULA, trying to ride roughshod over people who have stated a democratic opinion on this subject several times.

    I have to say, our current government must be absolutely loving this. We've spent the last 2 months having a completely unnecessary discussion and poorly timed discussion on a children's referendum... The polls were not 12 hours closed last Sunday when Eamon Gilmore started telling us that now we needed to talk about a referendum on gay marriage! And now this abortion topic is back centre stage again.

    Very convenient isn't it, the way we always seem to have something to occupy ourselves with in this country by way of the national conversation, besides the small little pressing matter of half a million people out of work, of tens of thousands emigrating out of the hopelessness that has now consumed this country at the moment, the hundreds of people and families every month falling further into food poverty.

    Thats odd. I dont remember getting the oppurtunity to express my will in this matter through voting. In fact a sizeable number of people in the country havent had the oppurtunity either.


  • #784
    EmptyTree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 749 ✭✭✭EmptyTree


    robman60 wrote: »
    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.

    While I would be inclined to agree with what you are saying, from what I have heard on the radio today it sounds like the doctor(s) didn't believe that the life of the woman was in danger and so couldn't act as they were bound by the current constitution i.e.

    "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."

    If the doctor(s) acted knowing that the life of the mother was in danger then they surely knew that this is malpractice and could be struck off as a result.

    One can only assume hope that based on the information they had at the time they believed the woman would survive.

    I've a feeling my contribution won't have a happy ending....:eek:


  • #785
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    billybudd wrote: »
    Or he got caught unaware of what definded that law.

    On a side note your use of the left as being somehow not mentaly sound is very childish and really takes away from how people view your opinion, you are coming of as a far right extremist with no respect for anyone that could be considered liberal, we all have our opinions here and you can disagree with whatever or whoever you wish but do it with some undertsanding that there is different voices out there and of the thought that when crisis happens its solution has always been found through people of all persuasions coming togeather.

    Well sorry but I fúcking hate the left in this country, I despise Labour and I despise the ULA. There is a despicable collection of people on the left in this country. Clare Daly, Joan Collins, Ivana Bacik, Richard Boyd Barrett, absolute mouth pieces the lot of them who I personally think are unfit for any political system.

    They are all pro-abortion and I'm sick of these people telling us that we keep having to revisit this subject of abortion. Legislate for how people spoke previously when it was put to the country and get on with it!


  • #786
    ibarelycare
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,456 ✭✭✭✭ibarelycare


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    What has what happened to that poor woman got to do with the Catholic Church??? It has nothing to do with what happened her, she died because someone was clearly negligent while she was in their care, and either didn't understand their responsibilities to the patient or else did understand their responsibilities but failed to provide them. It's called professional negligence. What has that got to do with the church in this country???

    You conveniently missed my point. Where did I even refer to this case in my post to you? You were talking about the "left wing loo laa brigade". I questioned you on that.


  • Advertisement
  • #787
    ibarelycare
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,456 ✭✭✭✭ibarelycare


    Angie_Baby wrote: »
    we dont want abortion on demand.
    and we dont want this,

    Sorry, who are you speaking for?


  • #788
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    These 51 pages explain exactly why no one in governmemt wants to touch the abortion question.:(
    Hysteria from both sides of the debate.
    All we have at the moment is one side of this terribly sad story, yet here we are screaming at one another about the Catholic Church, having doctors struck off, or even charged with manslaughter,Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Left, Right.
    Abuse and insults flying left right and centre.
    And next week or whenever the facts are revealed it could turn out to be a tragic but unavoidable death.
    The poor girl might have contracted septiceamia any way, we dont know because the facts aren't available.
    But dont let me stop you all using her demise to tear each other a new a**h*le...


  • #789
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    pablomakaveli wrote: »
    Thats odd. I dont remember getting the oppurtunity to express my will in this matter through voting. In fact a sizeable number of people in the country havent had the oppurtunity either.

    You probably didn't have the right to vote for the Good Friday Agreement either, maybe we should open up that whole can of worms again, just to accommodate yourself and anyone else who didn't get to vote back then? Same for the Maastrict Treaty maybe?


  • #790
    Icepick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,456 ✭✭✭Icepick


    af_thefragile wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure any doctor wouldn't just stand there and let the mother die in the very faint chance of saving a fetus which if very premature wouldn't have a high chance of survival anyway.

    Hence why I'm skeptical about the way the story is presented. Sounds more like pro-choice propaganda than a tragedy (which no doubt it is).
    Your shameless accusation is the propaganda.


  • #791
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    billybudd wrote: »
    The law that is ambiguous, that places the responsibilty on the Doctor and not the government with decision the he makes.

    Well the responsibility is on him/her now isn't it, with a patient in a grave?


  • Advertisement
  • #792
    otto_26
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 518 ✭✭✭otto_26


    mhge wrote: »
    Her life could have been saved twice.

    Once when it turned out that her pregnancy is not viable. Likely she would have walked out of the hospital on the following day. But the law does not allow to terminate such a pregnancy even if the foetus is not prognosed to survive.

    And again at the first signs of infection; she was made to suffer in order to wait for the vital signs to fade. It took a day but it could have taken more. Again it's not clear whether they would have been allowed by the law to terminate; was her life threatened or just her health?

    Well they don't just terminate a child in the UK if the women gets a cold they make sure her life is threatened and if so they then terminate.

    The fact thousands of medical interventions to save a mothers life have been done in Ireland without a problem. Why is it all of a sudden a problem?

    The doctor didn't do his job properly and that's what we should be talking about.


  • #793
    Angie_Baby
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 11 ✭Angie_Baby


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    Well in fairness, this debate is a wider debate than this thread and I'm personally SICK of left wing slags in this country like the kind in the ULA, trying to ride roughshod over people who have stated a democratic opinion on this subject several times.

    I have to say, our current government must be absolutely loving this. We've spent the last 2 months having a completely unnecessary discussion and poorly timed discussion on a children's referendum... The polls were not 12 hours closed last Sunday when Eamon Gilmore started telling us that now we needed to talk about a referendum on gay marriage! And now this abortion topic is back centre stage again.

    Very convenient isn't it, the way we always seem to have something to occupy ourselves with in this country by way of the national conversation, besides the small little pressing matter of half a million people out of work, of tens of thousands emigrating out of the hopelessness that has now consumed this country at the moment, the hundreds of people and families every month falling further into food poverty.

    couldn't agree more.
    why we are still having this debate is beyond me. i thought we voted on this abortion thing a few times now.
    and it (abortion on demand) was robustly rejected each time.

    this should have been dealt with as a medical procedure/emergency, if/when the woman's life was in jeopardy.
    if the doctor felt her life was not at risk, then he fuucked up and made a bad call. he should have to answer for that.


  • #794
    billybudd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭billybudd


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    Well sorry but I fúcking hate the left in this country, I despise Labour and I despise the ULA. There is a despicable collection of people on the left in this country. Clare Daly, Joan Collins, Ivana Bacik, Richard Boyd Barrett, absolute mouth pieces the lot of them who I personally think are unfit for any political system.

    They are all pro-abortion and I'm sick of these people telling us that we keep having to revisit this subject of abortion. Legislate for how people spoke previously when it was put to the country and get on with it!

    I dont know a country that has 100% of total agreement of everything, of course people will have different wants and different views and you cannot alter that, all you can do is make your point without belittling people because when people belittle others for their own gains then that is called bullying and intimidation and i am sure you would not like to live in a country that is ruled that way, debate does not have to be nasty and name calling, it can be much more productive and interesting when people give their different view points and in fact you can change peoples perception of something by pointing it out in a rationale and non threatening way.

    You get more with honey than vinegar sort of thing.


  • #795
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Angie_Baby wrote: »
    we dont want abortion on demand.
    and we dont want this,


    Who is "we"? And yes, she could have had an abortion back in India.


  • #796
    strandroad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭strandroad


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    What law exists that prevents the termination of a pregnancy in Ireland, viable or otherwise, where there is a risk to the life of the mother?

    The mother doesn't need to be at risk of losing her life to need termination of an unviable pregnancy. It may pose risks to her health, physical or mental - often it's not immediate and you are left to carry a dying baby or to know that it will die the moment it is born. You're a walking coffin. The legislation forces these women, already in mourning, to travel in order to terminate, and denies them aftercare in Ireland. Savita could not travel but could have been recognised as being at risk to her health "only" and therefore denied. All according to the law.


  • #797
    billybudd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭billybudd


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    These 51 pages explain exactly why no one in governmemt wants to touch the abortion question.:(
    Hysteria from both sides of the debate.
    All we have at the moment is one side of this terribly sad story, yet here we are screaming at one another about the Catholic Church, having doctors struck off, or even charged with manslaughter,Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Left, Right.
    Abuse and insults flying left right and centre.
    And next week or whenever the facts are revealed it could turn out to be a tragic but unavoidable death.
    The poor girl might have contracted septiceamia any way, we dont know because the facts aren't available.
    But dont let me stop you all using her demise to tear each other a new a**h*le...


    what did you expect, communal daisy chain making?:pac: its AH where normal and full rounded people stay away from.


  • #798
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    ibarelycare wrote: »
    You conveniently missed my point. Where did I even refer to this case in my post to you? You were talking about the "left wing loo laa brigade". I questioned you on that.

    You said the church influences laws in this country that prohibit a termination where a featus is not viable. I said that where there is a risk to the continuing life of the mother, there is no law that prevents the best surgical care being made available to treat the mother, even where that care results in the medical termination of her pregnancy.

    Either a law exists that stops a medical practitioner from providing best care to a pregnant woman in this country for the purposes of treating her and sustaining her life, or else it doesn't. You claimed that such a law seems to exist and that the Catholic Church and its influence is behind this law being on the statute book... I disagree...


  • #799
    Cool Mo D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,419 ✭✭✭Cool Mo D


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    You probably didn't have the right to vote for the Good Friday Agreement either, maybe we should open up that whole can of worms again, just to accommodate yourself and anyone else who didn't get to vote back then? Same for the Maastrict Treaty maybe?

    It has been nearly 30 years since the constitutional ban on abortion was put in. Since then, there have been 4 more referendums on abortion, and every one has been won by the side for broadening women's access to abortion, or preventing further restrictions on abortion. So it's hardly a resounding no to abortion from the electorate.


  • #800
    Angie_Baby
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 11 ✭Angie_Baby


    Nodin wrote: »
    Who is "we"? And yes, she could have had an abortion back in India.

    she could indeed, but was in no fit state to travel i imagine.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43155122/ns/health-childrens_health/t/million-girls-aborted-india-years/#.UKPQ8ofcmSo


  • #801
    mrsbyrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,228 ✭✭✭mrsbyrne


    billybudd wrote: »
    what did you expect, communal daisy chain making?:pac: its AH where normal and full rounded people stay away from.
    I did say dont let me stop you all... please continue...


  • Advertisement
  • #802
    Dodge
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,738 ✭✭✭✭Dodge


    Just realised the girl in the X case is about the same age as me. I Hope she's doing well today


  • #803
    billybudd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,497 ✭✭✭billybudd


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    Well the responsibility is on him/her now isn't it, with a patient in a grave?


    My point exactly. and further if it was just the baby who died through termination because the doctor felt it was the right call and because the babys heart was still beating then he could be facing a charge of manslaughter and thats the reality of this ambiguous law, this is the law that needs clarifying.


  • #804
    HellFireClub
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,912 ✭✭✭HellFireClub


    mhge wrote: »
    The mother doesn't need to be at risk of losing her life to need termination of an unviable pregnancy. It may pose risks to her health, physical or mental - often it's not immediate and you are left to carry a dying baby or to know that it will die the moment it is born. You're a walking coffin. The legislation forces these women, already in mourning, to travel in order to terminate, and denies them aftercare in Ireland. Savita could not travel but could have been recognised as being at risk to her health "only" and therefore denied. All according to the law.

    Clearly an argument that cannot stand up when the patient is now deceased.


  • #805
    otto_26
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 518 ✭✭✭otto_26


    mrsbyrne wrote: »
    These 51 pages explain exactly why no one in governmemt wants to touch the abortion question.:(
    Hysteria from both sides of the debate.
    All we have at the moment is one side of this terribly sad story, yet here we are screaming at one another about the Catholic Church, having doctors struck off, or even charged with manslaughter,Pro-Life, Pro-Choice, Left, Right.
    Abuse and insults flying left right and centre.
    And next week or whenever the facts are revealed it could turn out to be a tragic but unavoidable death.
    The poor girl might have contracted septiceamia any way, we dont know because the facts aren't available.
    But dont let me stop you all using her demise to tear each other a new a**h*le...

    Thanks for making me feel bad Mrs Byrne.. But your 100% right well said.


  • #806
    ThinkAboutIt
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 329 ✭✭ThinkAboutIt


    I see this has made the international news in most countries now. Another day to be embarrassed to be Irish.

    RIP.


  • #807
    robman60
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,229 ✭✭✭robman60


    Cool Mo D wrote: »
    It has been nearly 30 years since the constitutional ban on abortion was put in. Since then, there have been 4 more referendums on abortion, and every one has been won by the side for broadening women's access to abortion, or preventing further restrictions on abortion. So it's hardly a resounding no to abortion from the electorate.
    While I recognise that what you've said is factually correct, I think you'll agree that the risk of suicide case has been presented in a biased way. Studies have shown that a woman is far more likely to commit suicide after an abortion than after giving birth. These cases don't and won't get publicised in the media for obvious reasons, but it's definitely happening.


  • #808
    Tragedy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,051 ✭✭✭Tragedy


    Why aren't people waiting for the autopsy report before they become 'outraged' that she died due to being refused an abortion? No-one currently knows what exactly killed her, how/when/why the septicemia set in, and if a termination when she first requested it would have made any difference. It's likely it would, but no-one knows.

    As for legislating the X case, from what I'm told this would result in legislation that abortion is legal when there is a serious risk to the mother's life. Was that apparent here? Would legislation have made any difference whatsoever, or would the Doctor have decided that there was a risk to health (no abortion) but not a risk to life (abortion)?

    Also, how much of this is down to the Doctor's actions and individual beliefs(the comment on Ireland being a Catholic country strikes me as being really ****ing odd)?

    I'm 100% pro choice - but I find the instant outrage and agenda setting despite the lack of any clear facts...disquieting and a little bit insulting to her memory. She just died, people using her as an excuse to protest because of their own views...well, yeah.


  • #809
    strandroad
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,676 ✭✭✭strandroad


    HellFireClub wrote: »
    Clearly an argument that cannot stand up when the patient is now deceased.

    I'm sure it's of great consolation to her family that they could have saved her if they could time travel and prove she's going to die.

    The doctors gambled with her life as not to stick their necks out; for a pregnancy that was not viable to start with.

    And of course you ignored the fact that women are forced to carry unviable or travel to terminate.


  • #810
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Angie_Baby wrote: »
    she could indeed, but was in no fit state to travel i imagine.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43155122/ns/health-childrens_health/t/million-girls-aborted-india-years/#.UKPQ8ofcmSo


    Whats the point of that link?


  • Advertisement
  • #811
    ibarelycare
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 58,456 ✭✭✭✭ibarelycare


    HellFireClub wrote: »

    You said the church influences laws in this country that prohibit a termination where a featus is not viable. I said that where there is a risk to the continuing life of the mother, there is no law that prevents the best surgical care being made available to treat the mother, even where that care results in the medical termination of her pregnancy.

    Either a law exists that stops a medical practitioner from providing best care to a pregnant woman in this country for the purposes of treating her and sustaining her life, or else it doesn't. You claimed that such a law seems to exist and that the Catholic Church and its influence is behind this law being on the statute book... I disagree...


    I said nothing of the sort. I said that the people of this country were turning their back on the Catholic Church in their droves and that people are much more liberal. Both these factors means that there would be much more support for the pro-choice movement than there was 20 years ago.

    I never said anything about any laws existing.



    Anyway I'm on my way to the protest now. Hope there'll be a good turnout.


Advertisement