Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Knasher · 15-11-2012 05:10PM

Mellio wrote: »

We dont know that if the feotus was taken away sooner that she would have survived.

Standard procedure in countries where abortion is legal is to offer it in cases where a woman presents with her symptoms. The reason for this is that it offers the best odds of survival not to prolong the inevitable. We will never be able to say for certain if she would have survived if she had the right to avail of this option, everything carries risks, all we can say and with some certainity is that her odds would have improved.

Mellio wrote: »

Who is to say the consultant would have provided the right treatment straight after the removal of the feotus.

I think this case will come down to negligence by the consultant/team resposible for the treatment of this lady's health during and post feotal dying naturally.

Immediately after the D&C she was was brought to a high dependency unit in the hospital suffering from septicemia. Depending on the type of bacteria involved, the death rate for septicemia can be as high as 50%. I haven't heard anything suggesting that the doctors did anything negligent after the septicemia set in, so what exactly are you basing your comment on?

Flier · 15-11-2012 05:13PM

Maggie 2 wrote: »

The lady in this facebook story wasn't in any danger at any time. She was being monitored and if her blood count had dropped too low, action would have been taken. Hysterical reactions have no place in this traumatic case.

I don't see how this was an hysterical reaction. It's quite a similar situation. Where is the line between the health (this lady must have been quiet anaemic, which is accentuated by pregnancy) and the life (which you seem to be able to know was never at risk here - although there is no evidence from her story to confirm it. In fact she thought her life was at risk). Do we really have to let women get right to the line and past it before they get appropriate treatment. Never mind the pain and trauma, both physical and emotional that they must go through.

kunst nugget · 15-11-2012 05:13PM

Maggie 2 wrote: »

The lady in this facebook story wasn't in any danger at any time. She was being monitored and if her blood count had dropped too low, action would have been taken. Hysterical reactions have no place in this traumatic case.

What's hysterical about this story? It's another angle to the termination for medical reason debate which is essentially what this all boils down to. From reading that story I can't understand what good was achieved by letting that woman suffer carrying a non-viable foetus.

opinion guy · 15-11-2012 05:14PM

Maggie 2 wrote: »

The lady in this facebook story wasn't in any danger at any time. She was being monitored and if her blood count had dropped too low, action would have been taken. Hysterical reactions have no place in this traumatic case.

Well she was bleeding. Those bleeds can turn torrential quickly.

And besides all of that why should she have had to carry a slowing dying fetus for 7 weeks ?????:eek: Just to keep a religious minority happy ?

strandroad · 15-11-2012 05:35PM

Maggie 2 wrote: »

The lady in this facebook story wasn't in any danger at any time. She was being monitored and if her blood count had dropped too low, action would have been taken. Hysterical reactions have no place in this traumatic case.

No danger? She had multiple haemorrhages, her baby was not viable and yet she was made to return home and carry it for weeks. Had one of the haemorrhages escalated she could have lost her life. Are you happy to make her go through it for the heartbeat? there was no life to be saved apart from her own.

ejmaztec · 15-11-2012 05:36PM

opinion guy wrote: »

Well she was bleeding. Those bleeds can turn torrential quickly.

And besides all of that why should she have had to carry a slowing dying fetus for 7 weeks ?????:eek: Just to keep a religious minority happy ?

Mellio · 15-11-2012 05:38PM

Knasher wrote: »

Standard procedure in countries where abortion is legal is to offer it in cases where a woman presents with her symptoms. The reason for this is that it offers the best odds of survival not to prolong the inevitable. We will never be able to say for certain if she would have survived if she had the right to avail of this option, everything carries risks, all we can say and with some certainity is that her odds would have improved.

Immediately after the D&C she was was brought to a high dependency unit in the hospital suffering from septicemia. Depending on the type of bacteria involved, the death rate for septicemia can be as high as 50%. I haven't heard anything suggesting that the doctors did anything negligent after the septicemia set in, so what exactly are you basing your comment on?

Mainly Probabilities, someone is going to be made accountable for it!

From reading articles and listening to the comments of the husband it is not clear that she was taken to the ICU because of septicemia so it is not clear that she was in fact ever diagnosed.

accordingly she was given antibiotics and bloods were checked on the second day and eventually when the foetus was removed on the 3rd day it was then she became more ill during that evening and was taken to the ICU as her health was deteriarating rapidly.

This does not confirm that septecemia was diagnosed and was being treated in any way and is why I suggest that all proceduress m,ay not have been followed.

Flier · 15-11-2012 05:58PM

Mellio wrote: »

Mainly Probabilities, someone is going to be made accountable for it!

Why don't we try and fix the system rather than finding scapegoats for individual cases. It's always easy to find someone to blame, but that won't ensure this doesn't happen again.

MagicSean · 15-11-2012 06:01PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Is anyone actually arguing that the woman in question shouldn't have been given an abortion under the circumstances? I've not seen anyone make that argument... The way this whole thing is being dressed up by some foreign media sources is quite distasteful imo. According to the India Times 'Ireland murdered the woman'.. pretty sensationalist stuff considering no reports or inquiries in to the matter have been completed yet.

Assuming the facts are as have been reported and the abortion would have saved her life I can't really see why someone would object. Some people are arguing it would not have saved her life though.

melekalikimaka wrote: »

funny how everyone is ean expert on medical practice and law all of a sudden, people should really keep their moral compasses to themselves

So you disagree with people discussing the facts and the morals of the issue? Perhaps you would like to discuss the font in which the story was written

eyescreamcone · 15-11-2012 06:07PM

I think it's time we looked past legislation for abortion as per 92.
It's time for a 'warts and all' full debate and referendum on what WE the people of Ireland want in 2012.

No more will we allow fundamentalist groups lobby to fudge wordings of referenda, as has been done in the past.
Let's put all the cards on the table and ask the people if we want abortion in the relevant cases.

To me the relevant cases are:
1. if the mother is in danger of death (a no brainer)
2. if the mother is in danger of serious illness
3. if the fetus is not viable
4. if the child will be born disabled/handicapped or DS
5. on demand

Greater than 50% support for any or all will bring in abortion.
We need to know what the people want.
The anti-abortion rabble can have their say and if they are successful then the issue will be put to bed.

But I think the rabbit is now out of the box and it's going to be hard to go backwards from here.
Interesting times ahead.

Mellio · 15-11-2012 06:12PM

Flier wrote: »

Why don't we try and fix the system rather than finding scapegoats for individual cases. It's always easy to find someone to blame, but that won't ensure this doesn't happen again.

I couldnt agree more but I was asked why I thought it would be put down to negligence so your jumping on to something that I am responding to on something else.

please put your views accross in terms of the subject, always easy to point out the inadequacies of other peoples posts like so many do on here already.

I wasn't condoning it mearly stating what more than likely it will happen.

I do think though that if the correct procedures were not followed then what else can be done to ensure it doesnt happen again.

If the guidlines are not clear enough for the medical staff then they need to be made very clear and the staff need to be trained apprpriately otherwise this will happen again.

gozunda · 15-11-2012 06:13PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

If they didn't act within the confines of the law, they faced being struck off and possible jail time, not just a law suit. If that's the reason why they didn't act then the law's an ass, not them.

Welll Guess what?
He now faces being struck off and possible jail time, including a lawsuit if he is found to have acted negligently. In light of his apparent refusal to consider the risk of the miscarriage and liklyhood infection caused by an open cervix and his comment concerning a "catholic country" I believe he may very well be in trouble. Time will tell.

Maybe this will make others in the hospital think twice before attempting to administer the same treatment with regard to catholic morality to other women.

Knasher · 15-11-2012 06:14PM

Mellio wrote: »

Mainly Probabilities, someone is going to be made accountable for it!

From reading articles and listening to the comments of the husband it is not clear that she was taken to the ICU because of septicemia so it is not clear that she was in fact ever diagnosed.

accordingly she was given antibiotics and bloods were checked on the second day and eventually when the foetus was removed on the 3rd day it was then she became more ill during that evening and was taken to the ICU as her health was deteriarating rapidly.

This does not confirm that septecemia was diagnosed and was being treated in any way and is why I suggest that all proceduress m,ay not have been followed.

The first article I read on this from the journal http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-praveen-halappanavar-abortion-galway-hospital-673590-Nov2012/
states "Immediately afterwards Savita was brought to a high dependency unit in the hospital suffering from septicaemia.", I haven't heard anything contradicting this, so I'd like to ask for your source saying that septicemia wasn't diagnosed.

On top of that, antibiotics are pretty much the only thing to be administered when you are suffering from septicemia, everything else is pretty much just to try and keep you alive long enough so that the antibiotics can do their job before organ failure. Obviously we don't know what antibiotics were given and in what dose, but again I have to ask what exactly are you basing your suspicions that the doctors did something wrong in regards to the septicemia on?

mikom · 15-11-2012 06:20PM

A woman is dead.
A husband has lost his wife.

All because the deceased was not allowed to choose.
The choice was taken away by a law led by religion.

For shame Ireland.

I suppose it could be worse.
The deceased could have left behind a son or daughter.
If that was the case, maybe they could pray for her....

schemingbohemia · 15-11-2012 06:26PM

Mellio wrote: »

Mainly Probabilities, someone is going to be made accountable for it!

From reading articles and listening to the comments of the husband it is not clear that she was taken to the ICU because of septicemia so it is not clear that she was in fact ever diagnosed.

accordingly she was given antibiotics and bloods were checked on the second day and eventually when the foetus was removed on the 3rd day it was then she became more ill during that evening and was taken to the ICU as her health was deteriarating rapidly.

This does not confirm that septecemia was diagnosed and was being treated in any way and is why I suggest that all proceduress m,ay not have been followed.

This article by an experienced Ob/Gyn was linked to earlier, however I think it's worth quoting substantially from in response to this post

As Ms. Halappanavar died of an infection, one that would have been brewing for several days if not longer, the fact that a termination was delayed for any reason is malpractice. Infection must always be suspected whenever, preterm labor, premature rupture of the membranes, or advanced premature cervical dilation occurs (one of the scenarios that would have brought Ms. Halappanavar to the hospital).
As there is no medically acceptable scenario at 17 weeks where a woman is miscarrying AND is denied a termination, there can only be three plausible explanations for Ms. Hapappanavar’s “medical care” :
1) Irish law does indeed treat pregnant women as second class citizens and denies them appropriate medical care. The medical team was following the law to avoid criminal prosecution.
2) Irish law does not deny women the care they need; however, a zealous individual doctor or hospital administrator interpreted Catholic doctrine in such a way that a pregnant woman’s medical care was somehow irrelevant and superceded by heart tones of a 17 weeks fetus that could never be viable.
3) Irish law allows abortions for women when medically necessary, but the doctors involved were negligent in that they could not diagnose infection when it was so obviously present, did not know the treatment, or were not competent enough to carry out the treatment.
What we do know is that a young, pregnant, woman who presented to the hospital in a first world country died for want of appropriate medical care. Whether it’s Irish Catholic law or malpractice, only time will tell; however, no answer could possibly ease the pain and suffering of Ms. Halappanavar’s loved ones.
****
Since posting this piece I learned that Ms. Halappanavar’s widower reported that she was leaking amniotic fluid and was fully dilated when first evaluated. There is no medically defensible position for doing anything other than optimal pain control and hastening delivery by the safest means possible.

From here:

http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

If you read her "about me" you will see that she is not a baby-killer and has written a book about caring from premature babies.

kunst nugget · 15-11-2012 06:31PM

gozunda wrote: »

Welll Guess what?
He now faces being struck off and possible jail time, including a lawsuit if he is found to have acted negligently. In light of his apparent refusal to consider the risk of the miscarriage and liklyhood infection caused by an open cervix and his comment concerning a "catholic country" I believe he may very well be in trouble. Time will tell.

Maybe this will make others in the hospital think twice before attempting to administer the same treatment with regard to catholic morality to other women.

I was talking purely from one possible reason for the inaction of the doctor. If he didn't act because of uncertainty over the legality of his actions then I can understand the problem he might have faced. I'm not discounting any other possible reasons for what happened. If it was because of his or the hospitals ethos or his own negligence then let him burn tbh.

MagicSean · 15-11-2012 06:32PM

schemingbohemia wrote: »

This article by an experienced Ob/Gyn was linked to earlier, however I think it's worth quoting substantially from in response to this post

As Ms. Halappanavar died of an infection, one that would have been brewing for several days if not longer, the fact that a termination was delayed for any reason is malpractice. Infection must always be suspected whenever, preterm labor, premature rupture of the membranes, or advanced premature cervical dilation occurs (one of the scenarios that would have brought Ms. Halappanavar to the hospital).
As there is no medically acceptable scenario at 17 weeks where a woman is miscarrying AND is denied a termination, there can only be three plausible explanations for Ms. Hapappanavar’s “medical care” :
1) Irish law does indeed treat pregnant women as second class citizens and denies them appropriate medical care. The medical team was following the law to avoid criminal prosecution.
2) Irish law does not deny women the care they need; however, a zealous individual doctor or hospital administrator interpreted Catholic doctrine in such a way that a pregnant woman’s medical care was somehow irrelevant and superceded by heart tones of a 17 weeks fetus that could never be viable.
3) Irish law allows abortions for women when medically necessary, but the doctors involved were negligent in that they could not diagnose infection when it was so obviously present, did not know the treatment, or were not competent enough to carry out the treatment.
What we do know is that a young, pregnant, woman who presented to the hospital in a first world country died for want of appropriate medical care. Whether it’s Irish Catholic law or malpractice, only time will tell; however, no answer could possibly ease the pain and suffering of Ms. Halappanavar’s loved ones.
****
Since posting this piece I learned that Ms. Halappanavar’s widower reported that she was leaking amniotic fluid and was fully dilated when first evaluated. There is no medically defensible position for doing anything other than optimal pain control and hastening delivery by the safest means possible.

From here:

http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

If you read her "about me" you will see that she is not a baby-killer and has written a book about caring from premature babies.

Whatever about her qualifications or motivations, I fail to see how she can make such firm medical conclusions based on second hand information from media reports.

annascott · 15-11-2012 06:33PM

I know it doesn't bring Salvita back, but shouldn't there at least be a book of condolence from Ireland to India. I for one would feel better that it was known that we are not all as religiously swayed and barbaric as the people responsible for her death. On a public front, Ireland seems to be shrugging it's shoulders and trying to avoid blame rather than genuinely apologising.

MagicSean · 15-11-2012 06:35PM

annascott wrote: »

I know it doesn't bring Salvita back, but shouldn't there at least be a book of condolence from Ireland to India. I for one would feel better that it was known that we are not all as religiously swayed and barbaric as the people responsible for her death. On a public front, Ireland seems to be shrugging it's shoulders and trying to avoid blame rather than genuinely apologising.

To India? That bastion of equality and human rights? No. A book of condolence for the family sure but it'll be a cold day in Delhi when I take criticism of human rights issues from India.

Mellio · 15-11-2012 06:37PM

Knasher wrote: »

The first article I read on this from the journal http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-praveen-halappanavar-abortion-galway-hospital-673590-Nov2012/
states "Immediately afterwards Savita was brought to a high dependency unit in the hospital suffering from septicaemia.", I haven't heard anything contradicting this, so I'd like to ask for your source saying that septicemia wasn't diagnosed.

On top of that, antibiotics are pretty much the only thing to be administered when you are suffering from septicemia, everything else is pretty much just to try and keep you alive long enough so that the antibiotics can do their job before organ failure. Obviously we don't know what antibiotics were given and in what dose, but again I have to ask what exactly are you basing your suspicions that the doctors did something wrong in regards to the septicemia on?

Well I read the part of the article on the first page and then looked at the article in the irishtimes also linked on the fist page and it doesnt state either time that she was taken to HDU suffering from Septicemia even though the Journal states this so in fact this also doesnt state that septecemia was actually, it just states that she was suffering from it.

They state this because we know from the autopsy that she died of septicemia and E-Coli also in the irishtimes article.

My other question would be how would the journal know this if the hospital hasn't made a statement on the incident yet so therefore tit is not clear that septecemia was diagnosed.

By stating that someone was suffering from it does not mean that it was diagnosed. this is why they doctors will possibly be deemed negligent, I think there are a coupel of other threads suggesting this after mine, you may want to challenge there views as well.:)

My assumption like yours and the newspapers is pure speculation until the full outcome is made public.

mikom · 15-11-2012 06:40PM

MagicSean wrote: »

A book of condolence for the family sure but it'll be a cold day in Delhi when I take criticism of human rights issues from India.

Where were you on Feb the 9th?

Feb 9, 2012, 11.14AM IS

NEW DELHI: Mercury plunged five degrees below normal on Thursday morning bringing back cold conditions in the city which was experiencing a spell of relatively pleasant weather over the last few days.

The low was recorded at 4 degree Celsius, down by 4.5 degrees from Wednesday's minimum temperature of 8.5 degrees, the MeT office said.

Cold winds added to the chill in the air early in the morning but a bright sun gave some relief to people.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:f3xIAAwh33MJ:timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Cold-winds-leave-Delhiites-shivering/articleshow/11819866.cms+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie&client=firefox-a

Flier · 15-11-2012 06:45PM

Mellio wrote: »

Mainly Probabilities, someone is going to be made accountable for it!

From reading articles and listening to the comments of the husband it is not clear that she was taken to the ICU because of septicemia so it is not clear that she was in fact ever diagnosed.

accordingly she was given antibiotics and bloods were checked on the second day and eventually when the foetus was removed on the 3rd day it was then she became more ill during that evening and was taken to the ICU as her health was deteriarating rapidly.

This does not confirm that septecemia was diagnosed and was being treated in any way and is why I suggest that all proceduress m,ay not have been followed.

Mellio wrote: »

I couldnt agree more but I was asked why I thought it would be put down to negligence so your jumping on to something that I am responding to on something else.

please put your views accross in terms of the subject, always easy to point out the inadequacies of other peoples posts like so many do on here already.

I wasn't condoning it mearly stating what more than likely it will happen.

I do think though that if the correct procedures were not followed then what else can be done to ensure it doesnt happen again.

If the guidlines are not clear enough for the medical staff then they need to be made very clear and the staff need to be trained apprpriately otherwise this will happen again.

OK so firstly I'm not jumping on anyone or anything. I have made many more posts on this thread which contain my views. I don't have the time to repeat them every time I post. I imagine that the bigger picture here involves more than the medical staff.

gozunda · 15-11-2012 06:46PM

Mellio wrote: »

Well I read the part of the article on the first page and then looked at the article in the irishtimes also linked on the fist page and it doesnt state either time that she was taken to HDU suffering from Septicemia even though the Journal states this so in fact this also doesnt state that septecemia was actually, it just states that she was suffering from it.

They state this because we know from the autopsy that she died of septicemia and E-Coli also in the irishtimes article.

My other question would be how would the journal know this if the hospital hasn't made a statement on the incident yet so therefore tit is not clear that septecemia was diagnosed.

By stating that someone was suffering from it does not mean that it was diagnosed. this is why they doctors will possibly be deemed negligent, I think there are a coupel of other threads suggesting this after mine, you may want to challenge there views as well.:)

My assumption like yours and the newspapers is pure speculation until the full outcome is made public.

If you read the US gynaecologist report on what has been stated including a first hand report on what had happened provided by the husband on this she clearly states that the risk of infection is the primary decider for going ahead with a termination in all possible scenarios. In the case of someone suffering a miscarriage and having an open cervix this is highlighted as paramount.

So it would appear that it is irrelevant whether she was or was not diagnosed with septicaemia or other infection.

She was not treated with due regard to the risk posed by the miscarriage - hence the likley case of negligence

The Waltzing Consumer · 15-11-2012 06:57PM

annascott wrote: »

I know it doesn't bring Salvita back, but shouldn't there at least be a book of condolence from Ireland to India. I for one would feel better that it was known that we are not all as religiously swayed and barbaric as the people responsible for her death. On a public front, Ireland seems to be shrugging it's shoulders and trying to avoid blame rather than genuinely apologising.

Wow, so you have skipped waiting for facts to become known from any study of this horrible event, and you have graciously acknowledged that a book of condolence won't bring this poor lady back.

You do know that India has one of the highest maternal death rates in the world right? Whereas Ireland is 15th lowest in the world?

later12 · 15-11-2012 06:59PM

MagicSean wrote: »

To India? That bastion of equality and human rights? No. A book of condolence for the family sure but it'll be a cold day in Delhi when I take criticism of human rights issues from India.

Invoking John 8:7 in this context is to invoke one of the most absurd attitudes possible in international relations.

If only perfect societies could criticise imperfect societies, the world would dissolve into a general state of anarchy.

Of course they have a right to criticize us on human rights issues. Yes, it's bizarre; in fact it is so bizarre that India are criticizing our attitude to human rights that we need to wake up and pay attention to it and stop ignoring the European Court of Human Rights Ruling, which is another bizarre act on the part of Ireland.

Knasher · 15-11-2012 07:01PM

Mellio wrote: »

Well I read the part of the article on the first page and then looked at the article in the irishtimes also linked on the fist page and it doesnt state either time that she was taken to HDU suffering from Septicemia even though the Journal states this so in fact this also doesnt state that septecemia was actually, it just states that she was suffering from it.

They state this because we know from the autopsy that she died of septicemia and E-Coli also in the irishtimes article.

My other question would be how would the journal know this if the hospital hasn't made a statement on the incident yet so therefore tit is not clear that septecemia was diagnosed.

That is a reasonable point. I don't know what the source for the journals statement was. The fact that they tested blood and administered antibiotics suggests they might have been away of the possibility.

Mellio wrote: »

By stating that someone was suffering from it does not mean that it was diagnosed. this is why they doctors will possibly be deemed negligent, I think there are a coupel of other threads suggesting this after mine, you may want to challenge there views as well.:)

The difference is that you are claiming that the doctors were negligent for actions taken (or not taken) after the septicemia set in, an accusation you haven't backed up with anything (and it's possible that your accusation pertain to a different set of doctors). Whereas the other calls of negligence are based on the doctors comments about this being a catholic country and possibly deciding not to abort the fetus for personal religious reasons instead of being bound legally from aborting. Which aren't entirely baseless questions, though if I had to guess I'd say the doctor was bound legally.

old hippy · 15-11-2012 07:01PM

Oh crap, here we go. "My country is more X than that country etc" :rolleyes:

What happened to this woman, if not barbaric, was (at the very least) bad healthcare.

partyatmygaff · 15-11-2012 07:02PM

mikom wrote: »

A woman is dead.
A husband has lost his wife.

All because the deceased was not allowed to choose.
The choice was taken away by a law led by religion.

For shame Ireland.

I suppose it could be worse.
The deceased could have left behind a son or daughter.
If that was the case, maybe they could pray for her....

Sure, it would have been best practice to induce delivery after waiting for 24 hours in hospital and sure we should legislate to make it clear that therapeutic abortion is legal but that really isn't the crux of the issue (Despite the media and others erroneously making it out that the hospital's refusal to abort is the main reason for her death).

I know it doesn't make convenient material for making posts and sensationalising things for the benefit of pro-choice lobbyists but her not having an abortion probably played a relatively miniscule role in her death.

For one, it's extremely likely that she got the initial infection on Monday at the very latest (The day she requested an induction) as she only became symptomatic on Tuesday. I'd be more inclined to think it was earlier than Monday as I don't think it's hugely likely that the incubation period for an E.Coli strain was just 24 hours.

If they induced a delivery immediately on her request and discharged her from hospital a few hours later on foot of that, she would have went home and suffered the exact same fate. Even if she remained in hospital after the induction and they somehow realised a huge septicaemic infection was currently spreading throughout her body the chances of them getting the choice of antibiotic right with just empirical prescribing is very low. An ESBL strain like the one she was infected with is resistant to the vast majority of commonly used antibiotics. By the time they realised she was not responding to treatment and/or properly investigated the infection, it would have been too late to act and she would have become (Just as she actually did) another one of the thousands who die at the hands of septicaemia's huge mortality rate.

To my mind, whether she did or didn't have an abortion really wouldn't have made any difference to this tragic story. I can understand the husband and her family latching on to the abortion side of things as having something to direct your grief at is probably some help to the bereaved. As for the media and everyone else, it's really just sensationalism for the sake of having a convenient story to talk about to stir emotions and sell newspapers. Before anyone misunderstands me, I'm not saying we shouldn't legislate for therapeutic abortion because i'm all for clearing up that legal grey area. All i'm saying is despite what everyone else (Including her family) seems to be saying, abortion probably wouldn't have saved her. It could have helped, but I very highly doubt it would have helped to the point of saving her life.

MagicSean · 15-11-2012 07:03PM

mikom wrote: »

Where were you on Feb the 9th?

That's not cold. Practically a Summers day.

later12 wrote: »

Invoking John 8:7 in this context is to invoke one of the most absurd attitudes possible in international relations.

If only perfect societies could criticise imperfect societies, the world would dissolve into a general state of anarchy.

Of course they have a right to criticize us on human rights issues. Yes, it's bizarre; in fact it is so bizarre that India are criticizing our attitude to human rights that we need to wake up and pay attention to it and stop ignoring the European Court of Human Rights Ruling, which is another bizarre act on the part of Ireland.

But when our maternal death rates are so much lower than theirs I can't see how they could have an moral authority for it.

SomethingElse · 15-11-2012 07:07PM

mikom wrote: »

A woman is dead.
A husband has lost his wife.

All because the deceased was not allowed to choose.
The choice was taken away by a law led by religion.

For shame Ireland.

I suppose it could be worse.
The deceased could have left behind a son or daughter.
If that was the case, maybe they could pray for her....

Was the choice not taken away by the doctor?

Correct me if I'm wrong but abortions are allowed here when the mothers life is at risk, as was the case.

Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Comments