Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

frfintanstack · 15-11-2012 08:15PM

gozunda wrote: »

I will take it that you did't actually read the article then. It clearly states that our statistics are at least misleading and at worse a gross inaccuracy

I totally acknowledge that the stats arent fully accurate. AIMS says our stats will be similar to EU average measured the same way.

Of course you are presuming that international stats are accurate...

"at worse a gross inaccuracy" is in no way a reflection of what the article says.

We arent the safest place in the world to have a child...totally acknowledged. We are probably average( a first world average)

You seem to be trying to classify us as something else than a provider of first world maternal care with no evidence at all....accurate, mildly inaccurate or "grossly innaccurate"

But sure whatever you want to believe yourself.

mazi · 15-11-2012 08:24PM

We don't know the facts on this but it was horrible what happened and morally wrong that the lady was not given what she requested however has anyone thought of it from the Doctors point of view.If he carried out what was requested he is breaking the law and can be struck off practising medicine and sent to prison.It's the law abortion is illegal not because of religious points of view.

I personally believe it should be legal and a persons choice if they choose to do it without any judgment.

Would you do something if you knew you were going to be sent to prison for murder and loose everything you have worked and studied for???!!

Just giving my 2 cents!

gozunda · 15-11-2012 08:34PM

frfintanstack wrote: »

I totally acknowledge that the stats arent fully accurate. AIMS says our stats will be similar to EU average measured the same way.
Of course you are presuming that international stats are accurate...
"at worse a gross inaccuracy" is in no way a reflection of what the article says.
We arent the safest place in the world to have a child...totally acknowledged. We are probably average( a first world average)

You seem to be trying to classify us as something else than a provider of first world maternal care with no evidence at all....accurate, mildly inaccurate or "grossly innaccurate"

But sure whatever you want to believe yourself.

Not so much the estimated scale of misreporting more that as a "first world" country our statistics are not accurate and not undertaken in the same manner as other EU countries. My main concern would be why the lies? The fact that many state funded hospitals are still run as RC trusts concerns me even more.....

HeyThereDeliah · 15-11-2012 08:35PM

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.

A book of condolence for what so some people can feel good about themselves, we as a country have nothing to apologise for.

gozunda · 15-11-2012 08:41PM

mazi wrote: »

We don't know the facts on this but it was horrible what happened and morally wrong that the lady was not given what she requested however has anyone thought of it from the Doctors point of view.If he carried out what was requested he is breaking the law and can be struck off practising medicine and sent to prison.It's the law abortion is illegal not because of religious points of view.
I personally believe it should be legal and a persons choice if they choose to do it without any judgment.

Would you do something if you knew you were going to be sent to prison for murder and loose everything you have worked and studied for???!!

Just giving my 2 cents!

mazi - the doctor would not necessarily have been "breaking the law" this was clarified in the Dail today. The medical Council is quite clear where treatment is required to save a womans life then intervention is allowed. This comes from the Supreme Courts clarification of the Constitution. However the fact that he may not have provided the necessary care and may be found to have been negligent could lead to him being struck off practising medicine and possibly sent to prison OR being sued by the family of the woman concerned. What is damning was his citing of "its a catholic country" rather than bone fide medical reasons.

The Waltzing Consumer · 15-11-2012 08:41PM

later12 wrote: »

I would have presumed that the Catholic thing was a reference to the genesis of the legal sitiuation; admittedly that is wild & unreliable speculation on my part.

I have to agree that this "catholic" quote seems so strange. There is no real surprise that there is so much speculation about it. The image in my mind is some Irish doctor replying after being asked to be perform an abortion "no, this is a Catholic country" just does not sit right.

Is it possible the doctor was even not Irish? Is it possible as you say that when refusing to perform an abortion, the doctor was asked why we have strict laws and they simply stated the link between the predominant religion and abortion laws?

Morag · 15-11-2012 08:48PM

MagicSean wrote: »

That's not cold. Practically a Summers day.

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.

Are they really?

http://www.medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=maternal_death_%E2%80%93_into_the_great_unknown

The 2005 WHO report acknowledges the difficulties surrounding data collection in some countries. According to the report, "even in developed countries where routine registration of deaths is in place, maternal deaths may be underreported, and identification of the true numbers of maternal deaths may require additional special investigations into the causes of deaths".

"We are not saying that Ireland is the only country that has problems with data collection but we are absolutely sure that Ireland has problems in that respect," Dr O'Hare said.

The Waltzing Consumer · 15-11-2012 09:03PM

Sharrow wrote: »

Are they really?

http://sharrowshadow.wordpress.com/2012/11/15/maternal-death-into-the-great-unknown-the-medical-independent/

Did you even read that link?

Madam_X · 15-11-2012 09:04PM

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

A book of condolence for what so some people can feel good about themselves

No, to extend our sympathies - that is a what a book of condolences is.

we as a country have nothing to apologise for.

It's not apologising.

The Waltzing Consumer · 15-11-2012 09:08PM

Madam_X wrote: »

No, to extend our sympathies - that is a what a book of condolences is.

It's not apologising.

The original poster said "On a public front, Ireland seems to be shrugging it's shoulders and trying to avoid blame rather than genuinely apologising."

That's where the apology remark came from, not from the book of condolence idea

HeyThereDeliah · 15-11-2012 09:08PM

Madam_X wrote: »

No, to extend our sympathies - that is a what a book of condolences is.

It's not apologising.

It's so people can feel good about themselves, what will a book of condolence do? Nothing,waste of time IMO.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-media-rushes-to-judgment-but-we-dont-know-the-facts-3294515.html

I found this an interesting read.

Morag · 15-11-2012 09:14PM

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

It's so people can feel good about themselves, what will a book of condolence do? Nothing,waste of time IMO.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-media-rushes-to-judgment-but-we-dont-know-the-facts-3294515.html

I found this an interesting read.

Written by David Quinn, who was the editor of the Irish Catholic for 6 years and founder of the Iona institute.

The Waltzing Consumer · 15-11-2012 09:15PM

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

It's so people can feel good about themselves, what will a book of condolence do? Nothing,waste of time IMO.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-media-rushes-to-judgment-but-we-dont-know-the-facts-3294515.html

I found this an interesting read.

That is an interesting read and he makes some very valid points. These good points are drowned out though by a very obvious bias in his writings.

It's a pity, good points, ruined by a pre-existing agenda.

gozunda · 15-11-2012 09:15PM

Sharrow wrote: »

Written by David Quinn, who was the editor of the Irish Catholic for 6 years.

It was also already posted here earlier today I believe....check couple pages back...

As an aside - the worldwide coverage of how this woman was treated will impact our international reputation as a country
to visit, work or live in - Perhaps The Gathering project should do some rethinking....

HeyThereDeliah · 15-11-2012 09:19PM

Sharrow wrote: »

Written by David Quinn, who was the editor of the Irish Catholic for 6 years and founder of the Iona institute.

I know but still some valid point, the media highlights what they choose to. I think Ireland is getting a harder time than it deserves over this tbh. I agree changes are needed and only the government can make that happen.

jill_valentine · 15-11-2012 09:22PM

Madam_X wrote: »

I wish people would stop saying "we" as a nation are responsible though - you'd swear YD, the church and simpering TDs many of us did not vote for represented us all (yes I know the latter are public representatives but they dont literally represent all our views).

I do feel responsible, or at least complicit. I can't help feeling that even our local shower of halfwits in government would have had to act if we had made more noise, more often, much sooner. If we didn't have the ferry to act as a safety valve, maybe we would have.

I feel a terrific sense of personal shame to be a citizen of a nation that could do this to a young woman commended to the care of its medical system. I have very strong opinions on the subject and have campaigned in the past, but it's absolute madness that it had to come to this.

If it's true that we get the politicians we deserve, well then...

frfintanstack · 15-11-2012 09:26PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

That is an interesting read and he makes some very valid points. These good points are drowned out though by a very obvious bias in his writings.

It's a pity, good points, ruined by a pre-existing agenda.

A good point is a good point....

I think peoples view of David Quinn will mean they wont pay his article any attention but its the most sensible report on this tragedy I've seen.

(apart from where he veers off on his pro-life agenda)

Mellio · 15-11-2012 09:28PM

gozunda wrote: »

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

which if you read my early posts I am stating I think it will come down to negligence.

petersburg2002 · 15-11-2012 09:42PM

frfintanstack wrote: »

A good point is a good point....

I think peoples view of David Quinn will mean they wont pay his article any attention but its the most sensible report on this tragedy I've seen.

Surely better than the level of hysteria witnessed over the last two days. People should let the enquiry speak for itself. A lot of conjecture being spouted.

gozunda · 15-11-2012 09:43PM

Mellio wrote: »

which if you read my early posts I am stating I think it will come down to negligence.

The husband in an interview today on RTE News appeared to be saying that they were looking at taking a case against the hospital / consultant as well

Mellio · 15-11-2012 09:44PM

Knasher wrote: »

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.

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.

I dont think I mentioned after or before the septicemia set in my point is I beleive they will be deemed negligent due to there lack of immediate action. whether this is by not performing the abortion or considering the requirement to deal with the possibility of contracting septicemia.

There was also a point made on the tv this morning that with her contracting E-Coli the antibiotics were not going to make a difference as antibiotics dont work on E-Coli.

This kind of takes the question back to the requirement for the abortion.

frfintanstack · 15-11-2012 10:02PM

Mellio wrote: »

There was also a point made on the tv this morning that with her contracting E-Coli the antibiotics were not going to make a difference as antibiotics dont work on E-Coli.

Just being pedantic..................E.coli is treatable but I think they mentioned ESBL E.coli which is a antibiotic resistant strain and very hard to treat.

i think Ireland is getting an undeserved bashing for this and there are too many Irish people ready to accept it and apologise for something we haven't done.

But by the time the full story comes out it'll get no international media attention. The agenda of some in the media has done us a great disservice here. I couldnt get over the Irish girl who wrote in the guardian today...ridiculous stuff, but her mask slipped badly on newstalk. She came across as pretty crazy pro-choice.

It's unfortunate that this tragedy has gotten mixed up with the abortion debate. Both sides of which have so many extremists its impossible to have a rational debate.......

Madam_X · 15-11-2012 10:05PM

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

It's so people can feel good about themselves, what will a book of condolence do? Nothing,waste of time IMO

You can read people's minds? It's just a gesture of support and solidarity and compassion. Why should it achieve something? It doesn't mean we as a nation are directly responsible but it might show we as citizens are disgusted by what happened and want change.

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

I agree changes are needed and only the government can make that happen.

We are the ones who have the power to put pressure on the government. We're not accountable for what happened but we should be taking action in light of it.

jill_valentine wrote: »

If it's true that we get the politicians we deserve, well then...

Well it's easy to blame ourselves with hindsight but we didn't have crystal balls.

frfintanstack wrote: »

A good point is a good point....

I think peoples view of David Quinn will mean they wont pay his article any attention but its the most sensible report on this tragedy I've seen.

Madam_X · 15-11-2012 10:09PM

My issue with the Quinn article isn't merely that he's the writer, but the fact it's littered with whataboutery and of course an auld dig at the Guardian and it's "pro abortion agenda". Exceptionally petty and unprofessional journalism.

Madam_X · 15-11-2012 10:13PM

annascott wrote: »

On a public front, Ireland seems to be shrugging it's shoulders and trying to avoid blame rather than genuinely apologising.

Who in Ireland do you mean?

partyatmygaff · 15-11-2012 10:22PM

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.

Who is responsible for her death? How exactly are they responsible from a medical point of view? What could they have done and didn't do that would have definitely prevented her death?

To quote myself from another thread...

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I don't really care what a newspaper types up in big bold attention-grabbing print in the hope of garnering sales. What I care about is this case.

Let's forget all this stuff about the law, the Catholic church and whatever else the international media and the general public seem to be so focused on. Look at this from a medical perspective. So far, we know the following.

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 didn't seem that her level of pain was as debilitating as it was from Tuesday evening on.

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? (Providing it was already underway before she suggested an abortion as appears to be the case)

jill_valentine · 15-11-2012 10:30PM

People arguing over whether or not an abortion in the early stages would have been technically legal or not are missing the point to a mindboggling extent - there shouldn't be any room for argument in the first place, and that's the heart of the problem.

Doctors shouldn't have to wait around trying to figure out if the patient is dying enough to go ahead with the best medical practice for the situation. There shouldn't be any risk of a disincentive to do that, or any risk at all that the doctor would take into account any interest other than the patient's own.

The fact that they went ahead and removed the foetus when the heart had stopped - rather than letting a miscarriage process take its course - makes it pretty clear that they did know and believe that would have been best for her, they just chose not to do it sooner for reasons of their own. Whatever those reasons were, her wishes or welfare clearly weren't among them.

They denied her, at the very least, a fighting chance that she could have had. There's no disputing that - there was no reason at all to make her endure three more days of miscarriage than she needed to, there was no reason at all to knock a chunk off her odds of survival. But they did, and they could, because we lack an unambiguous legal mechanism to ensure otherwise.

billybudd · 15-11-2012 10:30PM

old hippy wrote: »

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.

Barbaric? to even use that word is mind boggling, i hardly think the medical team dealing with this lady acted in a barbaric way, neglect? maybe, confused? probaly although there is provisions set forth for Doctors regarding terminating a baby if the mothers life is in danger it is hampered by the fact that if the baby still has a heart beat then your in murky waters regarding prosecution, criminal and personal liability.

Morag · 15-11-2012 10:32PM

gozunda wrote: »

It was also already posted here earlier today I believe....check couple pages back...

As an aside - the worldwide coverage of how this woman was treated will impact our international reputation as a country
to visit, work or live in - Perhaps The Gathering project should do some rethinking....

Actually there are people who are using the gathering postcards to send to thier TDs saying they can't invite people to a country which lets women die like this.

gozunda · 15-11-2012 10:38PM

Sharrow wrote: »

Actually there are people who are using the gathering postcards to send to thier TDs saying they can't invite people to a country which lets women die like this.

That's a good idea - but I think I already filed mine under 'Bin'...

I like it though - the government are getting their own crap back

Pity there was no stamp - but I suppose that as a taxpayer one could write 'Already Paid' instead...hmmm

*goes off to root in the bin*

Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Comments