Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

alphabeat · 15-11-2012 12:05AM

speaking as a man,
if men could conceive tomorrow morning , we'd have abortion clinics in place by midday
church or no fcuking church

franktheplank · 15-11-2012 12:07AM

mhge wrote: »

Most abortions are caused by some sort of difficult circumstances or hardship, from medical to criminal, financial or psychological. Who sits down to ponder "ah well do I fancy this baby or not", which would constitute your real free choice.

I get that for some people it's not a decision taken lightly. At the same time there's a world of difference between hardship of some form, which we all face in life to some degree or another and something as horrific as rape or miscarriage and it's unfair to blurring the distinctions.

This is where I just can't see why the 'pro-choicers' keep pushing these issues. They're clearly not a choice and to even suggest so (as 'pro-choice' people obviously do) is horrible in my book.

By all means debate abortion but surely these situation (ie rape and miscarraige) can and should be categorized separately.

Rodin · 15-11-2012 12:09AM

ilovesleep wrote: »

She is the only person that knew her own body. No body else but her. No doctors or nurses, nobody but her. She felt she needed a termination and she asked for it. But she was not allowed by law. The problem here is our law.

Enda Kenny the fcuking worm will sit on this no doubt.

Are you advocating we let sick people decide what treatment they should have because they know their own body?

strandroad · 15-11-2012 12:10AM

Rodin wrote: »

She didn't have the right to demand one.

Your argument was that other pregnant women died of sepsis. She however could have avoided it if not for the law which places unviable life above hers.

cdaly_ · 15-11-2012 12:16AM

HellFireClub wrote: »

Many other people in this country, independent of their religious persuasion, feel the exact same way and this has been proven by the outcome of the several referendums that we have had on this subject, subsequent to which, the people have stated that they do not want abortion on demand in this country.

The people of Ireland have never been asked if they want abortion on demand. Every referendum on abortion in Ireland has had very restrictive wording which could not be construed as "abortion on demand". At every referendum proposing to qualify the restriction on abortion, the people of Ireland have voted for the more liberal option.* I would be interested to see what the vote would be for a referendum of the form: "abortion to be made available as provided for in law"...

1992: More restrictive, Rejected "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."
1992: More liberal, Approved "This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state."
1992: More liberal, Approved "This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state."
2001: More restrictive, Rejected " * Article 40.3.4:

In particular the life of the unborn in the womb shall be protected in accordance with the provisions of the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Act 2002.

* Article 40.3.5:

The provisions of section 2 of Article 46 [concerning constitutional amendments] and sections 1, 3 and 4 of Article 47 of this Constitution [concerning referendums] shall apply to any Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses of the Oireachtas containing a proposal to amend the Protection of Human Life in Pregnancy Act, 2002, as they apply to a Bill containing a proposal or proposals for the amendment of this Constitution and any such Bill shall be signed by the President forthwith upon his being satisfied that the Bill has been duly approved by the people in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of Article 47 of this Constitution and shall be duly promulgated by the President as a law. "

Tasden · 15-11-2012 12:19AM

nervous_twitch wrote: »

I don't want to speculate or disrespect those close to her in any way, but surely a woman collapsing in pain - a woman who eventually died - should have been recommended a termination much earlier? I know we can't legislate for the exactitudes, but any medical practitioner should know where the line needs to be drawn, and should be able to draw that line themselves.

People make judgement calls. Sometimes they're wrong. Sometimes the consequences are tragic.

I fell pregnant very young. I was advised by many 'care' professionals to terminate the pregnancy. I was told and advised many things by many different people who had a responsibility to care for me and my child.

I was told if I continued with the pregnancy I would not be able to complete my education. I've a degree now.

When I was very sick early in my pregnancy I was told it would pass at twelve weeks. I was sick every day right up to labour. During this time I lost weight and collapsed regularly. One doctor dismissed this as minor and of no concern, the next thought if I had left it longer baby would have been in danger and sent me to hospital to be given an IV.

When I went into labour I was told it would be a quick easy labour. It was 30 hours long. Baby went into distress and was born with cord around her neck.

Obviously none of these mistakes/ misjudgements resulted in a tragedy however in each of these cases it was a person whom I believed I could trust and they were wrong. Maybe this further illustrates why the mother should be listened to more, I don't know. All I know is mistakes do happen. Even with the best intentions.

ilovesleep wrote: »

She is the only person that knew her own body. No body else but her. No doctors or nurses, nobody but her. She felt she needed a termination and she asked for it. But she was not allowed by law. The problem here is our law.

Enda Kenny the fcuking worm will sit on this no doubt.

Rodin · 15-11-2012 12:19AM

mhge wrote: »

Your argument was that other pregnant women died of sepsis. She however could have avoided it if not for the law which places unviable life above hers.

where is the evidence to support that claim?

15-11-2012 12:19AM

Rodin wrote: »

Are you advocating we let sick people decide what treatment they should have because they know their own body?

There is a lot of conditions where a good doctor would diagnose and make consideration from that information you speak of a patient, and not just from blood tests, etc.

Rodin · 15-11-2012 12:21AM

NoDrama wrote: »

There is a lot of conditions where a good doctor would diagnose and make consideration from that information you speak of a patient, and not just from blood tests, etc.

That sentence doesn't make sense.

strandroad · 15-11-2012 12:27AM

Rodin wrote: »

where is the evidence to support that claim?

Where's the evidence that she would have had sepsis anyway, had she received induction or termination?

Noreen1 · 15-11-2012 12:33AM

mac.in wrote: »

Perfect. Antibiotics are given to prevent infection. But even after giving antibiotics if the person gets infection (in case of Savita, she developed chills, shivering, vomiting, collapse), there is no scope of any help from antibiotics; termination is the only choice. What was done here for Savita? She was still kept waiting till next day for the foetal heart to stop beating, in the name of law. The actual bone of contention, I feel, is this.
Anyways, my sincere condolences to the family involved too. R.I.P.

You're missing the point I made.

My niece has had a child die, in utero, three times.

Standard practice, each time, was to wait until the baby was expelled naturally.

Nothing to do with being pro-life , or pro-choice. It was deemed the less risky form of treatment.

Another poster has had five miscarriages - with the same treatment.
Again. Nothing to do with pro-life, or pro-choice.
Just standard medical practice. Despite the associated risk of infection, or septicaemia.

Hence, women whose child has died, in utero, are at just as much risk of septicaemia as those who miscarry over a longer period than the normal couple of hours.
But their medical treatment is the same - therefore, the decision to wait for the baby to be miscarried naturally is one associated with medical risk - not pro-life, or legal issues.

In Savitas case, she developed septicaemia.
We don't know whether she was on antibiotics.
We don't know how soon a diagnosis of septicaemia was made.
If septicaemia had already set in before she requested a termination, (which appears to be the case, given her symptoms) the termination would not have altered the fact that she already had septicaemia - and, therefore, would have had no bearing on whether she lived, or died.

It's a tragic case.
But to state that a termination would have saved her life is pure speculation, at this point.
What we need right now are facts - and what we seem to be getting is people pushing an agenda.

I think Savita - and every other woman of child-bearing age (and below) - deserve better than that.

Women need to know the risks associated with "normal" (a couple of hours) miscarriage, as opposed to prolonged miscarriage, (irrespective of whether the baby is dead , or alive) and how they compare to the risks associated with D&C, for instance.
It seems logical to me that the risk of septicaemia is higher for a woman carrying a dead baby than a live one, for obvious reasons.
Yet that appears to have gone completely unnoticed in the hue and cry for "choice".
Or does it not matter whether a woman has a choice if her baby is already dead, because there's no agenda to push?

ilovesleep · 15-11-2012 12:35AM

Rodin wrote: »

Are you advocating we let sick people decide what treatment they should have because they know their own body?

I'm not advocating what you are saying. This is different to say for example to someone diagnosed with cancer.

She was the only person who knew her own body well enough to think that this is not right so much so that she asked for a termination. No body else. No one knew just how badly her pain and suffering was but her so much so she asked for a termination.

Just like something called a mother's instinct. When she feels her child is for example ill and she takes her child to a doctor to be told - ah yeah, take this antib and kid will be grand. Mother then feels that something is just not right and seeks a second opinion and turns out there is something much more serious happening.

nervous_twitch · 15-11-2012 12:35AM

Tasden wrote: »

People make judgement calls. Sometimes they're wrong. Sometimes the consequences are tragic.

I fell pregnant very young. I was advised by many 'care' professionals to terminate the pregnancy. I was told and advised many things by many different people who had a responsibility to care for me and my child.

I was told if I continued with the pregnancy I would not be able to complete my education. I've a degree now.

When I was very sick early in my pregnancy I was told it would pass at twelve weeks. I was sick every day right up to labour. During this time I lost weight and collapsed regularly. One doctor dismissed this as minor and of no concern, the next thought if I had left it longer baby would have been in danger and sent me to hospital to be given an IV.

When I went into labour I was told it would be a quick easy labour. It was 30 hours long. Baby went into distress and was born with cord around her neck.

Obviously none of these mistakes/ misjudgements resulted in a tragedy however in each of these cases it was a person whom I believed I could trust and they were wrong. Maybe this further illustrates why the mother should be listened to more, I don't know. All I know is mistakes do happen. Even with the best intentions.

I really respect what you went through, I honestly do; and fair play to you for getting through your difficult pregnancy relatively unharmed.

However, this woman in pain requested a termination. She wanted to abort. It was denied, and unfortunately she lost her life for it.

Shinaynay · 15-11-2012 12:36AM

Handfull of students speak for entire college

Rodin · 15-11-2012 12:37AM

mhge wrote: »

Where's the evidence that she would have had sepsis anyway, had she received induction or termination?

I don't believe I made the claim that it was inevitable.

Rodin · 15-11-2012 12:39AM

ilovesleep wrote: »

I'm not advocating what you are saying. This is different to say for example to someone diagnosed with cancer.

She was the only person who knew her own body well enough to think that this is not right so much so that she asked for a termination. No body else. No one knew just how badly her pain and suffering was but her so much so she asked for a termination.

Just like something called a mother's instinct. When she feels her child is for example ill and she takes her child to a doctor to be told - ah yeah, take this antib and kid will be grand. Mother then feels that something is just not right and seeks a second opinion and turns out there is something much more serious happening.

And the mother's who bring the child to hospital convinced there is something serious but actually the child is perfectly fine?

Rodin · 15-11-2012 12:41AM

Shinaynay wrote: »

Handfull of students speak for entire college

Do they want the vote or something?

tolosenc · 15-11-2012 12:41AM

Fox News presenter just criticised Ireland's abortion laws as overly restrictive live on air.

We've literally hit rock bottom.

phoenix999 · 15-11-2012 12:44AM

tolosenc wrote: »

Fox News presenter just criticised Ireland's abortion laws as overly restrictive live on air.

We've literally hit rock bottom.

That is thoroughly depressing.

eyescreamcone · 15-11-2012 12:47AM

I'd like to see an opinion poll done this week

Do you agree with abortion in the following cases??
If the mothers life is at risk?
If the mothers health is at risk?
If the pregnancy is due to rape or incest?
If the unborn child is not viable?
If the child was to be disabled or DS?
On demand??

(Any other relevant questions??)

The answers to these questions would be very useful to the discussion

ilovesleep · 15-11-2012 12:48AM

Rodin wrote: »

And the mother's who bring the child to hospital convinced there is something serious but actually the child is perfectly fine?

I was making an example that a mothers instinct is the best thing to go on.

What is your point here with this?

jimmycrackcorm · 15-11-2012 12:48AM

saspeir wrote: »

http://www.channel4.com/news/woman-dies-in-ireland-after-abortion-refused

Read this. Particularly the quote about how medics referred to Ireland being a "Catholic Country"!

Most of our hospital doctors are non-Irish and probably under the same illusion that this is a Catholic country when it is anything but.

tolosenc · 15-11-2012 12:49AM

eyescreamcone wrote: »

I'd like to see an opinion poll done this week

Do you agree with abortion in the following cases??
If the mothers life is at risk?
If the mothers health is at risk?
If the pregnancy is due to rape or incest?
If the unborn child is not viable?
If the child was to be disabled or DS?
On demand??

(Any other relevant questions??)

The answers to these questions would be very useful to the discussion

I agree in all of those cases provided the parents of the foetus want to have an abortion.

Rodin · 15-11-2012 12:50AM

ilovesleep wrote: »

I was making an example that a mothers instinct is the best thing to go on.

What is your point here with this?

My point is I disagree with you.
I'd choose a doctor over my mother to decide medical treatment for me any day of the week.

ilovesleep · 15-11-2012 12:50AM

tolosenc wrote: »

Fox News presenter just criticised Ireland's abortion laws as overly restrictive live on air.

We've literally hit rock bottom.

We would have the likes of Rodkin and other pro-life pushers to thank along with our selfish, greedy government.

T-K-O · 15-11-2012 12:51AM

Hi,

Am I right in thinking this happened two weeks ago. If so why did it take two weeks for this story to hit the papers?

Rodin · 15-11-2012 12:51AM

tolosenc wrote: »

I agree in all of those cases provided the parents of the foetus want to have an abortion.

Yes.
Depends.
No.
No.
No.
No.

Absolutely no way should a kid with Down's be terminated just because they have Down's and the mother is otherwise healthy.

strandroad · 15-11-2012 12:52AM

Rodin wrote: »

I don't believe I made the claim that it was inevitable.

You did, by comparing with other pregnant women who died of sepsis. in their case it was a given, in hers a possibility. Possibly avoided with early enough help.

What is your point anyway, you just seem to throw loose facts around?

Rodin · 15-11-2012 12:53AM

ilovesleep wrote: »

We would have the likes of Rodkin and other pro-life pushers to thank along with our selfish, greedy government.

Have a little look at my answers to the poll just published.

Flier · 15-11-2012 12:53AM

Noreen1 wrote: »

You're missing the point I made.

My niece has had a child die, in utero, three times.

Standard practice, each time, was to wait until the baby was expelled naturally.

Nothing to do with being pro-life , or pro-choice. It was deemed the less risky form of treatment.

Another poster has had five miscarriages - with the same treatment.
Again. Nothing to do with pro-life, or pro-choice.
Just standard medical practice. Despite the associated risk of infection, or septicaemia.

Hence, women whose child has died, in utero, are at just as much risk of septicaemia as those who miscarry over a longer period than the normal couple of hours.
But their medical treatment is the same - therefore, the decision to wait for the baby to be miscarried naturally is one associated with medical risk - not pro-life, or legal issues.

In Savitas case, she developed septicaemia.
We don't know whether she was on antibiotics.
We don't know how soon a diagnosis of septicaemia was made.
If septicaemia had already set in before she requested a termination, (which appears to be the case, given her symptoms) the termination would not have altered the fact that she already had septicaemia - and, therefore, would have had no bearing on whether she lived, or died.

It's a tragic case.
But to state that a termination would have saved her life is pure speculation, at this point.
What we need right now are facts - and what we seem to be getting is people pushing an agenda.

I think Savita - and every other woman of child-bearing age (and below) - deserve better than that.

Women need to know the risks associated with "normal" (a couple of hours) miscarriage, as opposed to prolonged miscarriage, (irrespective of whether the baby is dead , or alive) and how they compare to the risks associated with D&C, for instance.
It seems logical to me that the risk of septicaemia is higher for a woman carrying a dead baby than a live one, for obvious reasons.
Yet that appears to have gone completely unnoticed in the hue and cry for "choice".
Or does it not matter whether a woman has a choice if her baby is already dead, because there's no agenda to push?

The difference being that when the cervix is closed and the amniotic sac is intact, the risk of infection is low. In this case, according to reports, the cervix was open, and amniotic fluid was leaking. In this case the risk of infection is much, much higher. I don't know what the guidelines are now, but it used to be that a woman should not be allowed to continue in labour if the waters had been broken for more than 24 hours because of the risk of infection. Savita was left 2 1/2 - 3 days. So I think this case may be very different to your experiences.

Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Comments