Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

The Waltzing Consumer · 16-11-2012 12:21PM

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

The true nature and views of the great mass of the people is suppressed by Sinn Fein. The fact that the barbarism meted out to Savita Halappanavar cannot find a voice within the political system reveals the true nature of that system, and all the parties and organisations that support that system.

No fan of SF but seriously?? You want to find a political party who will predetermine a medical investigation into this tragic death, from a bunch of politicians, the majority who have no medical training?

To criticise any party or person who wishes to understand the circumstances and facts of this horrible event before laying blame everywhere is ridiculous and not helpful.

kunst nugget · 16-11-2012 12:23PM

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

The doctor in that link is stating fact also when she has no idea what the circumstances were. The lady's husband is not a doctor so its not safe to assume he knows what he is talking about.

The widower is quoted as saying:

“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2012/11/ireland-and-abortion-cruelty-disguised-as-piety-cowardice-misrepresented-as-principle/

So in this instance it wasn't the widower that made the diagnosis but the doctor treating his wife. Dr. Jen Gunther then made her evaluation based on this.

The Waltzing Consumer · 16-11-2012 12:31PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

The widower is quoted as saying:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2012/11/ireland-and-abortion-cruelty-disguised-as-piety-cowardice-misrepresented-as-principle/

So in this instance it wasn't the widower that made the diagnosis but the doctor treating his wife. Dr. Jen Gunther then made her evaluation based on this.

But again, this is a grieving husband giving statements. It would be unfair to base fact on that without knowing all the circumstances.

gozunda · 16-11-2012 12:32PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

what others think of us should have no baring on our actions. Our own collective conscience, expressed through democratic means is the only thing that should "spur us on"

In an ideal world yes....

There is little or no political gradient to engender the real change in this country that is required to do what is ethically right.
As citizens we can lobby or vote successive governments in however because these governments are continually under the influence of such insidious groups as the RCC both directly and indirectly it is highly unlikely that we as citizens can effect real change. If it takes real international presure to force our inept little government to do what is right then so be it - I for one am tired of waiting.

gozunda · 16-11-2012 12:41PM

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Yep, Ireland is currently one of the safest countries on the planet for pregnant women.

ruthloss wrote: »

That statistic must be all the more baffling for the husband and family of Sevita. It certainly will not be a comfort to them in their grief.

That wonderful Maternal Death Rate quoted for the world has been already shown to be based on statistics that are best deeply flawed. This has already been discussed on this thread.

Even we're it a true state of affairs ( which it is not) as RL pointed out it is immaterial to what has happened to this woman and others who have suffered a similar fate. Great little country this - sure arn't we the best at everything.....

The Waltzing Consumer · 16-11-2012 12:42PM

gozunda wrote: »

In an ideal world yes....

There is little or no political gradient to engender the real change in this country that is required to do what is ethically right.
As citizens we can lobby or vote successive governments in however because these governments are continually under the influence of such insidious groups as the RCC both directly and indirectly it is highly unlikely that we as citizens can effect real change.

Well that's a bit of a cop-out. It is the easiest thing to blame the RCC influence. But it is also incorrect and passes the blame to an easy target.

A hundred times out of a hundred, I would bet that a politician is going to side with where they will retain most votes. It is simply implausible that any government or TD is going to risk being voted out if they were faced with overwhelmingly public opinion and support versus one priest or a few priests.

I think the simple truth is that the RCCs opinion for a long time matched the opinion of the majority of the electorate and that is the reason.

kunst nugget · 16-11-2012 12:45PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

But again, this is a grieving husband giving statements. It would be unfair to base fact on that without knowing all the circumstances.

True but I was responding to someone who seemed to think she had full and clear facts of when the infection set in. A gave another possible explanation for her septicemia. Also she said that best practice is to let nature take it's course. I pointed out the opinion of a respected obstetrician/gynecologist that said there was no medically defensible position for doing anything other than optimal pain control and hastening delivery by the safest means possible. I was told then that the husband was an unsound source of information given that he is grieving and not a doctor even though he listed a very specific set of symptoms that the doctor treating his wife said she was suffering from. Now he could be talking out his hoop but I'm willing to believe him at the moment. If a report comes and categorically shows that what he is saying is a lie then I willing come on here and admit my error of judgement.

But like everyone here I would like to know fully the facts of this case and whether it was down to the law of the land, the ethos of the hospital or the negligence of the doctor.

The Waltzing Consumer · 16-11-2012 12:45PM

gozunda wrote: »

[=

Atomicjuicer wrote: »

Yep, Ireland is currently one of the safest countries on the planet for pregnant women.

That wonderful Maternal Death Rate quoted for the world has been already shown to be based on statistics that are best deeply flawed. This has already been discussed on this thread.

Yes and those "deeply flawed" statistics would not only increase the maternal rate in Ireland and the UK, the would most certainly increase the rates in all, even more so in the worst offenders such as India. It is based on same criteria so would only Ireland be the only adjustment?

HeyThereDeliah · 16-11-2012 12:49PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

The widower is quoted as saying:

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/alex-massie/2012/11/ireland-and-abortion-cruelty-disguised-as-piety-cowardice-misrepresented-as-principle/

So in this instance it wasn't the widower that made the diagnosis but the doctor treating his wife. Dr. Jen Gunther then made her evaluation based on this.

Hearsay it's not known what the doctor said, I'm in no way saying the husband is lying but the doctor could say different in his report.

We do not know all the facts of the case yet so for the doctor in the link to make a diagnosis is unfair, it's her opinion but its not fact.

The Waltzing Consumer · 16-11-2012 12:53PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

True but I was responding to someone who seemed to think she had full and clear facts of when the infection set in. A gave another possible explanation for her septicemia. Also she said that best practice is to let nature take it's course. I pointed out the opinion of a respected obstetrician/gynecologist that said there was no medically defensible position for doing anything other than optimal pain control and hastening delivery by the safest means possible. I was told then that the husband was an unsound source of information given that he is grieving and not a doctor even though he listed a very specific set of symptoms that the doctor treating his wife said she was suffering from. Now he could be talking out his hoop but I'm willing to believe him at the moment. If a report comes and categorically shows that what he is saying is a lie then I willing come on here and admit my error of judgement.

But like everyone here I would like to know fully the facts of this case and whether it was down to the law of the land, the ethos of the hospital or the negligence of the doctor.

Good points and the highlighted part, this is where I see issues. From reading the various news articles, there seems to be a general assumption from the grieving family and friends that because this lady was from a particular religion, the law of the land should not apply to her.

"The rules should be changed as per the requirement of Hindus. We are Hindus, not Christians,” she said."
http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-parents-speak-out-675917-Nov2012/

"Savita said to her she is not Catholic, she is Hindu, and why impose the law on her."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

Now, I don't want to be too critical, but this is one of the most basic things people understand when they travel, be it Ireland, Italy, India, you follow the law of the land. You or I have no right to travel to India and say laws do not apply to us because we are Christian or Athiest or any religion. This is why I think it is even more important to wait for the full findings as there are so many rumours and half heard facts in this case already.

gozunda · 16-11-2012 12:54PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Well that's a bit of a cop-out. It is the easiest thing to blame the RCC influence. But it is also incorrect and passes the blame to an easy target.

A hundred times out of a hundred, I would bet that a politician is going to side with where they will retain most votes. It is simply implausible that any government or TD is going to risk being voted out if they were faced with overwhelmingly public opinion and support versus one priest or a few priests.

I think the simple truth is that the RCCs opinion for a long time matched the opinion of the majority of the electorate and that is the reason.

So what do you recommend then - the RCC still retains a stranglehold over this country
The schools , the hospitals even schools and universities - in every aspect of influence they are there - manipulating and controlling our politics, our health care and our educational system . The RCC have traditionally controlled opinion and this is not the same thing as matching it imo. They have done this by telling people who to vote for , what to vote for and if that doesn't work high flying members in organisations such as Opus Dei have ensured that their wishes have been carried out to the highest level

What would you suggest - do to get rid of them or let them continue their pernicious influence. I know what I would advocate and all get them out of being allowed deciding what is best for us as a country and its citizens Organised religion has nothing to do with the reproductive health of woman.

It is Time to remove the clerics from the parlour once and for all....

gozunda · 16-11-2012 12:59PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Yes and those "deeply flawed" statistics would not only increase the maternal rate in Ireland and the UK, the would most certainly increase the rates in all, even more so in the worst offenders such as India. It is based on same criteria so would only Ireland be the only adjustment?

No they would not increase the rate of Maternal survival. - our statistics are clearly false . My concern at this junction is not so much the scale of this false reporting but why as a supposed first world country there is a need to lie about what the rate actually is. Is it coincidental that many of our hospitals are still controlled by the RCC. - I think not

kunst nugget · 16-11-2012 01:00PM

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

Hearsay it's not known what the doctor said, I'm in no way saying the husband is lying but the doctor could say different in his report.

We do not know all the facts of the case yet so for the doctor in the link to make a diagnosis is unfair, it's her opinion but its not fact.

How is it hearsay? It is a direct quote from one of the people involved in the conversation with the doctor. So either you think the husband is lying or not.

The Waltzing Consumer · 16-11-2012 01:00PM

gozunda wrote: »

So what do you recommend then - the RCC still retains a stranglehold over this country
The schools , the hospitals even schools and universities - in every aspect of influence they are there - manipulating and controlling our politics, our health care and our educational system . The RCC have traditionally controlled opinion and this is not the same thing as matching it imo. They have done this by telling people who to vote for , what to vote for and if that doesn't work high flying members in organisations such as Opus Dei have ensured that their wishes have been carried out to the highest level

What would you suggest - do to get rid of them or let them continue their pernicious influence. I know what I would advocate and all get them out of being allowed deciding what is best for us as a country and its citizens Organised religion has nothing to do with the reproductive health of woman.

It is Time to remove the clerics from the parlour once and for all....

Whilst I would certainly share you views on the RCC, I would disagree highly on the influence you give them in Ireland. The RCC had influence as people gave it to them, simple. I don't think this is the case now. If it is, maybe you have a few examples you could provide that shows the predominant view of electorate being defeated by a tiny number of priests? Do you have some examples?

HeyThereDeliah · 16-11-2012 01:06PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

How is it hearsay? It is a direct quote from one of the people involved in the conversation with the doctor. So either you think the husband is lying or not.

What if the other people involved in the conversation say different? I don't know what was said because I was not there. This is the problem everyone can contradict each other.

The Waltzing Consumer · 16-11-2012 01:08PM

gozunda wrote: »

No they would not increase the rate of Maternal survival. - our statistics are clearly false . My concern at this junction is not so much the scale of this false reporting but why as a supposed first world country there is a need to lie about what the rate actually is. Is it coincidental that many of our hospitals are still controlled by the RCC. - I think not

The statistics are not clearly false and no article has said that. It talks about different categories of maternal death, one being that of suicide as this is difficult to attribute to maternity. Are you saying that countries like India would have a perfect record of recording such deaths in their maternal rates whereas Ireland does not?

Have you read the particular article in how calculating the figure is difficult?
http://www.medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=maternal_death_%E2%80%93_into_the_great_unknown

"Direct - deaths resulting from obstetric complications of the pregnant state; Indirect - deaths resulting from previous existing disease, or disease that developed during pregnancy, and not due to direct obstetric causes; Late - deaths occurring between 42 days and one year after abortion, miscarriage or delivery (includes direct or indirect causes); and Coincidental - deaths from unrelated causes which happen to occur in pregnancy or the puerperium."

gozunda · 16-11-2012 01:13PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

Good points and the highlighted part, this is where I see issues. From reading the various news articles, there seems to be a general assumption from the grieving family and friends that because this lady was from a particular religion, the law of the land should not apply to her.

"The rules should be changed as per the requirement of Hindus. We are Hindus, not Christians,” she said."
http://www.thejournal.ie/savita-parents-speak-out-675917-Nov2012/

"Savita said to her she is not Catholic, she is Hindu, and why impose the law on her."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741

Now, I don't want to be too critical, but this is one of the most basic things people understand when they travel, be it Ireland, Italy, India, you follow the law of the land. You or I have no right to travel to India and say laws do not apply to us because we are Christian or Athiest or any religion. This is why I think it is even more important to wait for the full findings as there are so many rumours and half heard facts in this case already.

Ok I understand what you are saying but I can also fully appreciate the families views on this matter.

If the law of the land was properly explained to and not given some Mumbo Jumbo catholic excuse why the doctor could not provide treatment. treatment which is considered best practice, is allowed for under the constitution and which would given the woman the best possible chance of recovery

The whole point here is what the hell should our religion have anything to do with our healthcare system? Why is a woman's reproductive health even considered a religious matter over which the RCC has dominion? We are allegedly a first world country and yet we have a healthcare system that is being controlled by ignorance and superstition - how do we explain that to our international visitors who may believe that their health and safety will safeguarded?

fishy fishy · 16-11-2012 01:13PM

Mervyn Crawford wrote: »

Sinn Fein web site statement:

Sinn Fein’s reluctant statement. A woman's life must be in "real danger".

My understanding of the condition that Savita Halappanavar suffered is that it is not normally life threatening; but there is a small chance that it can develop into such. And sound medical practice dictates that the grave potential risk is forestalled by inducement or termination.

As a doctor said on Pat Kenny's radio programme yesterday, in another country the patient would be asked to sign a disclaimer if she refused a termination as would be advised in the circumstances.

So according to Ó Caoláin, which situation does he believe merits medical intervention – when Savita Halappanavar was first diagnosed as miscarrying at GalwayUniversity Hospital; or was it when she was in “real danger”?

His reference to “alleged legal and ethical grounds” raises interrelated issues.Political position and philosophical outlook.

Along with his view that “ …we must await the outcome of on-going inquiries before drawing conclusions on all aspects of this particular case….” Ó Caoláin makes abundantly clear that Sinn Fein are committed to the system, and all that that implies.

For anyone with eyes to see Ireland is dominated by and riddled with a reactionary religious ideology that pervades all aspects of life. This does not mean that the great majority of people are religious reactionaries; but it does mean that the reactionaries have an insidious political control, as allies,and members, of the capitalist ruling class.

The determined opposition on the streets, and the voices that make their way into the broadcast media, the letters pages of the press and on the web sites make equally clear that this medieval ‘ethos’ is repugnant to the population.

Yet Sinn Fein’s ambiguity shies away from this divide in Irish society.Between those who believe that Catholic Church has a right to dictate and those who believe it does not. Hence Sinn Fein’s use of ‘ethical grounds’ in place of religious belief. This hiding of the true nature of the political world shows just where Sinn Fein’s allegiances lie– with the status quo; with the Catholic Church; with the rich.

The true nature and views of the great mass of the people is suppressed by Sinn Fein. The fact that those who reject the barbarism meted out to Savita Halappanavar cannot find a voice within the political system reveals the true nature of that system, and all the parties and organisations that support that system.

have no idea what you are trying to say mervyn. Are you just using the situation to have a go at SF. If so, Shame on you.

kunst nugget · 16-11-2012 01:20PM

HeyThereDeliah wrote: »

What if the other people involved in the conversation say different? I don't know what was said because I was not there. This is the problem everyone can contradict each other.

Then somebody or everybody is lying. We can't make any assumptions based on when she developed the infection as this information is not known (this could easily have happened before as it could have after) but we can look at what the husband says he was told by their doctor and how long she had to wait for the fetal heartbeat to stop and a D&C to be performed and we can debate some of these issues raised and their wider implications for Irish society.

If, in the report, the husband's story is proven to be a falsehood I'll hold my hands up and say I was wrong. At the moment I see no reason not to trust his version of events.

The Waltzing Consumer · 16-11-2012 01:21PM

gozunda wrote: »

The whole point here is what the hell should our religion have anything to do with our healthcare system? Why is a woman's reproductive health even considered a religious matter over which the RCC has dominion? We are allegedly a first world country and yet we have a healthcare system that is being controlled by ignorance and superstition - how do we explain that to our international visitors who may believe that their health and safety will safeguarded?

Well it should not and I agree completely. But unfortunately, the majority of people in this country kept voting FF back in who sat on the fence and had a mandate to do so. Like the economic crash, adults cannot just lump blame on politicians and governments, the majority of people kept voting them back in and therefore, Gozunda, I would say, don't scapegoat the RCC or FF, it is too easy. The real blame goes to the electorate, those who voted FF or those who did not even bother to vote.

gozunda · 16-11-2012 01:23PM

The Waltzing Consumer wrote: »

The statistics are not clearly false and no article has said that. It talks about different categories of maternal death, one being that of suicide as this is difficult to attribute to maternity. Are you saying that countries like India would have a perfect record of recording such deaths in their maternal rates whereas Ireland does not?

Have you read the particular article in how calculating the figure is difficult?
http://www.medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=maternal_death_%E2%80%93_into_the_great_unknown

"Direct - deaths resulting from obstetric complications of the pregnant state; Indirect - deaths resulting from previous existing disease, or disease that developed during pregnancy, and not due to direct obstetric causes; Late - deaths occurring between 42 days and one year after abortion, miscarriage or delivery (includes direct or indirect causes); and Coincidental - deaths from unrelated causes which happen to occur in pregnancy or the puerperium."

Yes the maternal rate of death reported is false. We are not talking about India here btw - we are talking about why we refuse to properly report the death rate in the same manner as other EU countries - why is this statistic being trotted out when it clearly does not show the full picture of maternal deaths. We are supposed to be a first world country! Our statistics omit deaths attributable to miscarriage and delivery exactly the type of death that is relevant in this case.

The Waltzing Consumer · 16-11-2012 01:26PM

gozunda wrote: »

Yes the maternal rate of death reported is false. We are not talking about India here btw - we are talking about why we refuse to properly report the death rate in the same manner as other EU countries - why is this statistic being trotted out when it clearly does not show the full picture of maternal deaths. We are supposed to be a first world country! Our statistics omit deaths attributable to miscarriage and delivery exactly the type of death that is relevant in this case.

Gozunda, as far as I read in that article which is arguing your point, it is not saying that the rates attributable to miscarraige and delivery are omitted, it is arguing about the other categories, deaths long after birth, suicide, unrelated deaths but in the time frame etc.,. Do you not agree with the article?

steddyeddy · 16-11-2012 01:29PM

What the husband, doctors or whoever else said does not change the fact that we need clear legislation.

suicide_circus · 16-11-2012 01:34PM

Sometimes people die.

We have ZERO actual evidence that an abortion would have prevented this death until the report is published.

My name is URL · 16-11-2012 01:35PM

CruelCoin wrote: »

"we" being the people who voted against abortion the last time it came up in referendum? An abortion that would have saved her life?

We may not have put the gun in the killers hands, but we let him have it, with ammo, with the knowledge it was going to kill someone someday.

Legalese nonsense aside, its ****ty from a societal point of view, and i'm ashamed that "we" the Irish people let this happen.

We never voted 'against abortion'. As Sharrow said, we allowed successive governments to ignore the will of its people. What do you intend to do about it now? Will you be out protesting or taking part in any other form of civil disobedience until laws are modernised and the government legislates for the X Case?

In any event 'we' are not to blame for what happened to her.. maybe you are, I don't know if you've ever taken part in a protest on the issue, and I don't know how you voted in referendums of the past. But I (and evidently most others posting here) certainly don't condone what happened, and would vote in favor of new constitutional amendments if there was a plebiscite held tomorrow.

The whole 'we as a nation' diatribe is just the good old Irish guilt complex coming into play. If you truly feel responsible for what happened then I assume you will be taking to the streets until changes are made...

steddyeddy · 16-11-2012 01:36PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Sometimes people die.

We have ZERO actual evidence that an abortion would have prevented this death until the report is published.

So does that change the fact that we need to legislate for cases where abortion might prevent death?

General Zod · 16-11-2012 01:37PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Sometimes people die.

We have ZERO actual evidence that an abortion would have prevented this death until the report is published.

so despite the fact that she was miscarrying and there was no chance the baby would have survived, doctors should be legally forced to sit back and wait and risk the life of the mother?

She's basically got an open wound for 2 fecking days and the doctors should just leave her there?

suicide_circus · 16-11-2012 01:40PM

steddyeddy wrote: »

So does that change the fact that we need to legislate for cases where abortion might prevent death?

Did i say that?
I'm just opposed to the wild hysteria and wringing of hands all based on speculation and hearsay.

suicide_circus · 16-11-2012 01:41PM

General Zod wrote: »

so despite the fact that she was miscarrying and there was no chance the baby would have survived, doctors should be legally forced to sit back and wait and risk the life of the mother?

She's basically got an open wound for 2 fecking days and the doctors should just leave her there?

Are you a medical professional and do you know the precise circumstances of this case?

old hippy · 16-11-2012 01:42PM

suicide_circus wrote: »

Did i say that?
I'm just opposed to the wild hysteria and wringing of hands all based on speculation and hearsay.

This is an emotive topic. Our hysteria in regards to a simple medical procedure killed this woman. What's not to get upset about?

Pregnant woman dies in UCHG after being refused a termination

Comments