Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

MagicSean · 15-11-2012 02:42PM

seb65 wrote: »

Right, but breaking pelvises, forcing unmarried women into laundries, forcing women to undergo three days of a painful miscarriage, forcing women whose babies have abnormalities which means they won't survive after birth to undergo travel to England for a termination and then travel all the way back home while suffering from the after effects...those things don't actually kill the woman right? Doesn't make it a "safe" place to be a pregnant woman though does it?

Ireland has shown throughout history it could care less about a woman's body, soul and mind.

I never said it was the easiest place to be pregnant, just that it had one of the lowest death rates for women giving birth.

planetX · 15-11-2012 02:43PM

Rascasse wrote: »

That's the bit I don't buy. The Supreme Court in the X case set the precedent that under 40.3.3 that women too have a right to life and abortion is acceptable where her life is at risk. While the government hasn't legislated precise rules (methods, time limits etc) the precedent still exists. Abortions must happen here all the time, in ectopic pregnancies for example, so why the big deal in this case?

exactly - and the doctor responsible with be able to hide behind all this hysteria about the law. The law already allows proper medical treatment in this situation, and I hope the consultant doesn't walk away scott free because of the uproar over the constitution.

Madam_X · 15-11-2012 02:43PM

seb65 wrote: »

Actually, talking to my friends and family from North America - where I'm from - say they would be afraid to be pregnant here now. It's the weighing in the back of the mind of the pregnant woman of what could happen. I don't think any pregnant woman needs any more concern as to all the things that could go wrong during her pregnancy.

Understandable given the gravity of it, but still not taking into account that the likelihood is minuscule. The legislation has to be effected though of course.

Flier · 15-11-2012 02:43PM

Rascasse wrote: »

That's the bit I don't buy. The Supreme Court in the X case set the precedent that under 40.3.3 that women too have a right to life and abortion is acceptable where her life is at risk. While the government hasn't legislated precise rules (methods, time limits etc) the precedent still exists. Abortions must happen here all the time, in ectopic pregnancies for example, so why the big deal in this case?

I think the difference here is that in ectopic pregnancy there is always a risk to the LIFE of the mother. From the moment of implantation, so any termination in this case falls squarely within the law. In this case, the argument is at what point did the risk change from being to the health as opposed to the life of the mother. And it seems the conclusion was that as her life wasn't at risk, only her health, then it might not be lawful to terminate. Of course we know now...

seb65 · 15-11-2012 02:44PM

billybudd wrote: »

Your friends are idiots and more likely drama queens, please provide links where it is stated that the Irish maternity hospitals are not run properly and would cause ladies who are pregnant to be afraid.

Well there's only about five stories in each of the country's national newspapers today about the death of a pregnant woman who was denied a proper medical procedure. Two others died last month as well. Go do your own research.

billybudd · 15-11-2012 02:45PM

Cool Mo D wrote: »

The church has been campaigning right up to a few months ago against legislating for the X case, and was the primary lobby group responsible for giving us our current abortion laws, so of course the church are responsible.

Lobbyist groups only lobby, they dont pass legislation. The sum of people in this country is greater than that of the church, well done people who have fought to have this legislated over the last 20 years as they can hold their heads high today unlike the majority who didnt really care and that has nothing to do with what the CC want.

I have not considered abortion and its effects good/bad up until this tragedy happened so i was part of the problem also.

billybudd · 15-11-2012 02:46PM

seb65 wrote: »

Because every time the issue comes up some Bishop or Priest is publishing an article about how Ireland can't introduce abortion as the moral fortitude of the country would be impeached, blah, blah, blah?

Imagine being the government that brought it in. Most of the TDs are Catholic, I'm sure many of them are practicing. Imagine what their parish priests are whispering - or yelling - in their ears about their own eternal damnation if they legalize abortion.

The government is run by the CC now? news to me.

Madam_X · 15-11-2012 02:46PM

seb65 wrote: »

Because every time the issue comes up some Bishop or Priest is publishing an article about how Ireland can't introduce abortion as the moral fortitude of the country would be impeached, blah, blah, blah?

Imagine being the government that brought it in. Most of the TDs are Catholic, I'm sure many of them are practicing. Imagine what their parish priests are whispering - or yelling - in their ears about their own eternal damnation if they legalize abortion.

Not as prevalent now though. You seem to be looking to Ireland of the past to make an assessment of it - it's not entirely irrelevant of course, but it doesnt account for the many changes in recent decades.

seb65 · 15-11-2012 02:48PM

Madam_X wrote: »

Understandable given the gravity of it, but still not taking into account that the likelihood is minuscule. The legislation has to be effected though of course.

Yeah. I mean, it is minuscule. You know how people get about pregnancies though, the whole family is on edge for the nine months. Not buying things for the baby until its born, etc.

billybudd · 15-11-2012 02:48PM

seb65 wrote: »

Well there's only about five stories in each of the country's national newspapers today about the death of a pregnant woman who was denied a proper medical procedure. Two others died last month as well. Go do your own research.

As opposed to how many healthy child births?

Would you like me to list the US goverments role in maternity tragedies? Horrible things happen and we can only learn by them, hopefully.

seb65 · 15-11-2012 02:52PM

billybudd wrote: »

Lobbyist groups only lobby, they dont pass legislation. The sum of people in this country is greater than that of the church, well done people who have fought to have this legislated over the last 20 years as they can hold their heads high today unlike the majority who didnt really care and that has nothing to do with what the CC want.

I have not considered abortion and its effects good/bad up until this tragedy happened so i was part of the problem also.

If the sum of the people is greater than the church than why hasn't there been a new referendum on abortion and one on gay marriage?

The government is afraid of alienating voters because those voters are ruled by the CC.

billybudd · 15-11-2012 02:57PM

seb65 wrote: »

If the sum of the people is greater than the church than why hasn't there been a new referendum on abortion and one on gay marriage?

The government is afraid of alienating voters because those voters are ruled by the CC.

No, this should have been legislated by now, it was 20 years since the x case and each government elected has ignored it and the electorate has ignored it and by blaming the CC you dont go to the root of the problem, polls conducted before this event show that a ref on abortion would most likely be passed, the fact is the amount of people needed to shout to get this brought to the surface was not loud so the government had no reason to rock the boat.

I am not relgious and wouldnt pay attention to priests in general but the blame being put on them reflects from the truth, this is a political problem that should have been resolved by now but basilcally nobody gave a f88k, they do now and i am very happy about that.

Flier · 15-11-2012 02:58PM

planetX wrote: »

exactly - and the doctor responsible with be able to hide behind all this hysteria about the law. The law already allows proper medical treatment in this situation, and I hope the consultant doesn't walk away scott free because of the uproar over the constitution.

I think this is an important point. I have no idea why the doctor on the day made the decision he/she did. Was there a religious bias for his decision, or did he believe he was following the letter of the law. But so long as there is a law to 'hide behind', we are allowing doctors let non medical factors influence their decision. I have no doubt in my mind that similar situations have happened before where the inevitable misscarraige is aborted and no more is said.

ruthloss · 15-11-2012 03:02PM

Eamonn Gilmore has today called for legal clarity on terminations.
Way to go Eamonn!!., better late than never I suppose.

opinion guy · 15-11-2012 03:06PM

Flier wrote: »

I think this is an important point. I have no idea why the doctor on the day made the decision he/she did. Was there a religious bias for his decision, or did he believe he was following the letter of the law. But so long as there is a law to 'hide behind', we are allowing doctors let non medical factors influence their decision. I have no doubt in my mind that similar situations have happened before where the inevitable misscarraige is aborted and no more is said.

One is forced to wonder - how many times has this happened in the past and the family has not spoken out ? This case is unusual in that her husband is willing to speak out, is well educated in a health care related field, she had family who are doctors and asking questions, they have a friend who is a consultant orthopaedic surgeon in Galway who is brave enough to speak out, and there is the international interest.

This is the perfect storm for Irish abortion debate and irish health care in general - its been a long time coming. Lets hope it changes things.

Morag · 15-11-2012 03:12PM

Flier wrote: »

The non religious argument is that it is the law.

Law that should have been changed 20 years ago after the Xcase ruling and the referendum.

Even if the X Case is legislated for it won't be enough.

It won't be enough, as it won’t cover women who need a medical termination due to fatal fetal abnormalities

It won’t be enough as it won’t cover women like Michelle Harte, was being treated for cancer.

Khannie · 15-11-2012 03:14PM

Sharrow wrote: »

Law that should have been changed 20 years ago after the Xcase ruling and the referendum.

Even if the X Case is legislated for it won't be enough.

It won't be enough, as it won’t cover women who need a medical termination due to fatal fetal abnormalities

It won’t be enough as it won’t cover women like Michelle Harte, was being treated for cancer.

To be fair, nothing short of abortion on demand will be enough for pro-choice activists. The first words I expect to hear when X is legislated for (and I want that legislation) is "it's not enough".

ZeRoY · 15-11-2012 03:16PM

NinjaK wrote: »

why?

Because Pro-life movements have been slowing things down when it comes to legislation on this matter. As per always, those minority groups are the loudest, and financial means - this is partially why no gouv has gone near the issue for 20 years.

Morag · 15-11-2012 03:21PM

Women on live line are talking about being left to miscarry in the same way.

Morag · 15-11-2012 03:22PM

Khannie wrote: »

To be fair, nothing short of abortion on demand will be enough for pro-choice activists. The first words I expect to hear when X is legislated for (and I want that legislation) is "it's not enough".

Some, not all, and in my expereince not most.

Morag · 15-11-2012 03:22PM

Did you know that White is the Hindu colour for mourning?
It is being asked that if you can, please wear white, to any of the vigils/marches/protests you are attending this weekend.

15-11-2012 03:28PM

Sharrow wrote: »

Women on live line are talking about being left to miscarry in the same way.

The lady on now, her story is so, sad.
Has me in tears.
And i'm a 40 yr old man.

opinion guy · 15-11-2012 03:39PM

opinion guy wrote: »

When someone is in pain and potential mortal danger and you withhold treatment is that not malice and intent to harm ?

If she had survived the baby would still have died but we would never have heard of it. Yet she would have been made suffer 3 days of agony and misery unnecessarily and against her will. How many women has this happened to that we don't know about ?

Sounds like torture to me

NoDrama wrote: »

The lady on now, her story is so, sad.
Has me in tears.
And i'm a 40 yr old man.

Sometimes its depressing being right

K-9 · 15-11-2012 03:42PM

Khannie wrote: »

To be fair, nothing short of abortion on demand will be enough for pro-choice activists. The first words I expect to hear when X is legislated for (and I want that legislation) is "it's not enough".

That happens with most things, I'm sure if we get a referendum on gay marriage some will say "didn't I tell you they'd get more rights after we made it legal".

Assuming the doctor acted correctly legally, I'm not sure if the X case would be much use in this case. My worry would be that we do indeed legislate for the X case but cases like this still happen.

later12 · 15-11-2012 03:43PM

Haven't read all the pages of this thread so I don't know if this has come up, I just want to raise a comparison to the Michaela McAreevy case in Mauritius.

I felt there was an element of scoffing amongst Irish people at a perception of Mauritius as a primitive and barbaric society based on the McAreevy case.

We were disgusted at the treatment of John McAreevy at the hands of the authorities in Mauritius after his wife's death; but now the shoe is on the other foot. There are a number of parallels between that case and the treatment of Salvita Halappanavar & her husband and the lack of dignity & care that they were afforded by this state. It is embarrassing, and it should be.

Because the issue is not so much that maternal septicemia caused a substantial risk of death (medics suggest this might have been a freak case) but the first issue to resolve is the obligation of putting a mother through the ordeal & stress of miscarriage instead of inducing a fetus which is certain to die.

The latter, medical risk is a much more well worn issue & a cloudier one.

The former is something new which has never come before the courts or the people, and perhaps abortion under these circumstances is something the majority of Irish people would be happy to go along with... if given the opportunity.

seb65 · 15-11-2012 03:45PM

Khannie wrote: »

To be fair, nothing short of abortion on demand will be enough for pro-choice activists. The first words I expect to hear when X is legislated for (and I want that legislation) is "it's not enough".

You mean to be unfair? You think pro-choice activists are waiting for bated breath to start killing babies?

That idiotic phrase, abortion on demand, as if we allow for abortion, everyone will want one, like it's an iPhone.

I think you'd find that instead of 5,000 women traveling to England a year, there'd be 5,000 abortions in Ireland a year.

omega666 · 15-11-2012 03:50PM

Am i missing something but is it not already ok for doctors to provide abortions in cases where it is deemed necessary to save the life of a mother.

In the case the problem is one Particular doctor not following this/misdiagnosied the woman who died?

opinion guy · 15-11-2012 03:50PM

NoDrama wrote: »

The lady on now, her story is so, sad.
Has me in tears.
And i'm a 40 yr old man.

Who is the Doctor speaking on RTE right now ? I want to find his research

Mark someone

Wompa1 · 15-11-2012 03:56PM

omega666 wrote: »

Am i missing something but is it not already ok for doctors to provide abortions in cases where it is deemed necessary to save the life of a mother.

In the case the problem is one Particular doctor not following this/misdiagnosied the woman who died?

I believe you are right. I think it was just incompetence on the part of the hospital staff which, if you've been to that hospital you'd realize is not just specific to this case. We should probably look at the quality of healthcare overall rather than make this completely about abortion legislation. The Hospital should not get off lightly because it's a "Catholic" country

Khannie · 15-11-2012 03:58PM

seb65 wrote: »

You mean to be unfair? You think pro-choice activists are waiting for bated breath to start killing babies?

No I think they're waiting with bated breath for choice / abortion on demand. That's why they're pro-choice activists.

seb65 wrote: »

That idiotic phrase, abortion on demand, as if we allow for abortion, everyone will want one, like it's an iPhone.

I don't think there's anything idiotic about the phrase. What would you call it? I don't see why people get upset about it tbh. I'm happy to use another phrase which accurately describes it.

seb65 wrote: »

I think you'd find that instead of 5,000 women traveling to England a year, there'd be 5,000 abortions in Ireland a year.

That's naive in the extreme. You should check the statistics on live births versus terminations in other countries. For most western countries it's roughly 3:1. I can't see any reason to think that Ireland would be massively different. In 2009 in Ireland we had 75,554 births. If live births remained the same and we hit the same ratio as other countries (and again, I can't see any reason to think that we wouldn't) that would result in roughly 25,000 terminations here.

Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Comments