conaire1 wrote: » Biko I came to the Board last night to read local response to a local tragedy. When I saw no posts, I thought they may have been moved to the national tread(s). I'm baffled and disturbed that nobody had started a thread much earlier. Thanks for the Saturday Vigil Facebook thread, I hope to be there.
biko wrote: » Hopefully this terrible death will be the spark that opens up a debate and a change in the law so any further tragedies can be prevented.
Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination. This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.
Sponge Bob wrote: » Eamonn O Cuiv Brian Walsh Seán Kyne Noel Grealish Derek Nolan
BhoscaCapall wrote: » The Catholic Church has held this country back more than any empire ever did, and I say that as a staunch Republican.
Sponge Bob wrote: » Termination is not permitted where the baby has NO chance of surviving. IN this case she had a fully dilated cervix and survivability was 0%. The same applies in cases of Anencephaly where the foetus may go full term and will die upon birth, no termination is permitted despite the 100% probability of death after delivery. Clare Daly attempted to introduce a Bill to allow for termination in limited circumstances earlier this year. The Bill, if enacted, MIGHT have saved Savita even if only to get her out of hospital before she caught the superbug that killed her, E Coli EBSL. This is the Bill. "The Medical Treatment (Termination Of Pregnancy In Case Of Risk To Life Of Pregnant Woman) Bill 2012"http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=20441&&CatID=59 Clare has some notes on it here . Read section 4 of the bill itself.http://www.claredaly.ie/medical-treatment-termination-of-pregnancy-in-case-of-risk-to-life-of-pregnant-woman-bill-2012/ The following Galway West TDs voted AGAINST the Bill and are listed here.http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/04/19/00006.asp Eamonn O Cuiv Brian Walsh Seán Kyne Noel Grealish Derek Nolan Section 4Provision of Medical Treatment4.—(1) It shall be lawful for a medical practitioner to provide any form of medical treatment to a woman, despite its consequences for the life of the foetus, provided that— (a) two medical practitioners have each formed an honestly held and reasonable belief that there is a real and substantial risk to the life of that woman, other than through suicide or another condition ordinarily diagnosed and or treated by a consultant psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist, which can be averted only by the provision of that 25 medical treatment, or (b) there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman through suicide or another condition ordinarily diagnosed and or treated by a consultant psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist, as determined by— 30 (i) one medical practitioner and one consultant psychiatrist, or (ii) one medical practitioner and one clinical psychologist, or (iii) in the absence of an available consultant psychiatrist or a clinical psychologist and to prevent undue delay in the examination and or treatment of the woman, two medical practitioners, who have formed an honestly held and reasonable belief that there is a real and substantial risk to the life of that woman which can be averted only by the provision of that medical treatment.(2) It shall be the entitlement of the woman— (a) regarding the necessity of medical treatment under the terms of this Act, to seek a further opinion from her choice of such medical practitioner or practitioners, consultant psychiatrist or clinical psychologist in such combi- 5 nation as is required by subsection 1 of this section— (i) as have been nominated independently by her, or (ii) to whom she has been referred by one or both of the providers of the first opinion
Cleahaigh wrote: » Or maybe an early abortion could have ended up the same way, given the nature of the intervention. Abortions do have an elevated risk of septicemia as well.
She died of a septicaemic ESBL-producing E.Coli infection. She was admitted to hospital on a Sunday complaining of back pains and was told she was suffering a miscarriage. At this point, it doesn't appear she was in abnormally huge pain. On Monday, she asks for an induction to resolve the miscarriage and her request is refused due to the presence of a foetal heartbeat. At this point, i'd imagine the pain very slowly started to increase. At an estimation based on when she became symptomatic, i'd she was at least suffering from systemic inflammatory response syndrome + the early stages of sepsis. On Tuesday morning, she asked for another induction and was refused again. Symptoms of advanced septicaemia started to show that evening and the medical team responded by starting her on antibiotics. Wednesday lunchtime, the foetus died and the womb contents were removed. By evening, she is critical with weak vital signs and a high fever. By Saturday, her infection progressed to multiple organ failure and by the end of the day she had died. Let's consider the scenario where they agreed to her request and aborted on Monday evening. She would have still been in a bit of pain which would have written off as normal and she would have been discharged with a prescription for painkillers. The abortion would have removed the source of the infection and some portion of the bacteria but if (as I suspect) the infection had already reached the bloodstream all it really would have done is prolong the incubation time. Instead of becoming symptomatic on Tuesday evening, she would have become symptomatic later on in the week. She'd return to the hospital again, they'd treat her with a standard antibiotic (Empirical prescribing is standard practice until they identify the species responsible for the infection) which probably wouldn't have any effect on the strain she was infected with and she'd die in the exact same way. What medically sound reason is there to suggest that an abortion would definitely have stopped her death by septicaemia?
Lon Dubh wrote: » There is a vigil for Savita on Saturday (tomorrow) in Eyre Square at 5pm if anyone is interested in attending.
_Whimsical_ wrote: » It's very difficult to get a full grasp of what happened without all the facts involved. I think the case was definitely mismanaged and medical staff were clearly not alert enough to her level of pain and distress or to the possibility of developing infection. Whether this tragedy occurred as a result of our abortion laws is harder to ascertain. From what I can see the Irish Medical Councils guidelines would have allowed for termination here and it would've been considered surgical management of a miscarriage rather than a termination in a case where there was zero chance of life for the baby. Apparently that is not uncommon in these situations and happens as a standard response to ectopic pregnancy which would involve a threat the mothers life and a nonviable but alive foetus.Also without signs of infection the management of this miscarriage was medically valid. So it could be a case where the fault lies with the medical teams lack of alertness more than it does with our laws. I'm going to wait for further facts in this case before I decide. Something went horribly wrong here and it is a truly tragic case.I think X should be legislated for but not necessarily because of this case until more facts emerge.
shampoosuicide wrote: » whatever about medical management, surely the point is that the woman asked for an abortion and was refused, which is clearly to do with abortion laws
Unrealistic wrote: » It's only the point if you're starting at it from the point of view that a woman should have the sole right to make a decision about having an abortion. But the reality is that abortion on demand hasn't a hope of happening in Ireland at any time the next few decades. The reality is that our Constitution bans abortion unless the life of the mother is threatened. So the point has to be clearly defining what are the threats to the life of the mother that warrant an abortion so that doctors can work within that definition rather than in a vacuum.
Unrealistic wrote: » But the reality is that abortion on demand hasn't a hope of happening in Ireland at any time the next few decades.
shampoosuicide wrote: » there's a difference between 'abortion on demand' and a woman asking for a foetus that has no chance of surviving to be removed from her womb though. Abortion on demand is a very loaded phrase but - as you imply - there's a middle ground we should be working towards, that gives women at least some control over situations like this, rather than leaving it to law or medical practice.
