Consultant 'refused abortion plea'

I watched his act on telly months ago ,
One thing stood out for me "I'm not Irish so Irish laws don't apply to me"
The whole situation has been over hyped

Seachmall wrote: »

She was entitled to an abortion if her life was deemed to be in sufficient danger.

His qualm is that her being refused neglected to take the law and medical professionalism into account and instead rejected it on religious grounds.

That's hear say
I believe none of this should have been made public before a full investigation was carried out ,
No public appearance's no media interviews the whole thing is skewed to his claims ,

WayneMolloy wrote: »

Praveen became a pawn in a game that he never fully understood.

This may not necessarily be true. Until all the facts emerge it is best to keep an open mind about the case.

CaraMay wrote: »

I do agree with the op and hope I am never in their situation but I suspect he can fallen in with people who may see this as an option to make a few €€€€€.

Where is he living now?

Ah, does it matter where he's living ? He's wife died here in Ireland and they both had lived here for over 12 years. So when someones spouse dies due to a perceived negligence their partner only wants the truth because of the money. Some lovely people around here. Maybe he arranged her death for the publicity and the money. Get a grip people. Put yourselves in his shoes. Not everything being reported is true and unless anyone on here were part of the group that put the report together we don't know all the FACTS. FACTS is what should come out of an inquest.

CaraMay wrote: »

We can only comment based on the 'facts' we have at han and are entitled to our opinions

Why does it matter where he currently is living ?

Rosy Posy wrote: »

The woman was miscarrying and in agony. She died of septicemia as a result of having an open wound. Do you honestly think that her husband should have made the call to get her on a plane to England and into an abortion clinic in this state? No airline would have taken her- it would have had to have been by helicopter. It would be totally alien to most people, Irish or not, to expect that their life would be placed in danger like this over a legal technicality. The foetus was not viable- there was no question of the baby being saved, only that the heart was still beating they would not do a d&c.

I believe that there was a more basic negligence on the part of the hospital staff. When I was having my first baby my waters broke but I did not go into labour straight away. Once I had an open wound for more than 24 hours I was placed on iv antibiotics to avoid the risk of septicemia. Had this basic precaution been taken this woman would still be alive today,

I find peoples idea that she was in agony odd, painkillers were on her leaked chart, so she was not in agony, she may have been in a little pain, that is plausible, but agony is hyped-dramatics!

From what has been leaked/said do far, the hospital seems to have been negligent, that is clear. But I refuse to believe for a minute that any consultant is a religious nut, he may have said it in disgust, but I doubt that too. There is one case in my direct family alone where to save my step-mother, her baby was terminated. So this "oh they never put the mother first claim is BS"

Evidence based medicine practice, which is compiled by the WHO, recommends letting nature take its course and allowing the foetus to pass naturally as a medical termination would have increased the risk of infection, that said, the poor woman was clearly very much in a state of sepsis, but to add to that is not recommended either.

Same with my friend who was left for 3/4 days in a bed waiting to have her child, sure she was given anti-biotics, but I do think to this day 36/48 hours would have been long enough without medical intervention, as is recommended, but that is her issue with them not mine.

The abortion debate is something that should be discussed on the correct platform by the relevant professionals to give people an education on all the information to make an informed decision in a democratic referendum, and not via smear campaigns by either side!

I don't think Praveen was thinking straight when the Pro-choice fanatics (and both sides have fanatics) took over. He was grieving and thought they cared for his wifes life and not for their own agenda. It is clear now that the dust has settled that that was their only objective. Using the personal pain of that man and his beautiful wife to get their own agenda brought forward and thrusted into the media.

Medicine is not perfect, there will always be casualties, and doctors screw up, that is human error. And they should be made accountable for their errors, and I do believe, regardless of whether his place of residence now is in Ireland, the EU, or back in India, if the hospital is liable, he should be given compensation.

May Savita RIP and may we get a clear report as to what happened. Not that it should have ever been such a public matter. It was a private matter and should have remained such!

hardCopy wrote: »

We wouldn't have had a full investigation of he hadn't gone public

Not true, I had issue with that hospital before and I asked for an investigation. Every doctor and nurse involved was brought in on it, and none of it was in the media to get me that. It was a small investigation because the matter was not a life threatening one, but it was double figure pages long and in depth. ALL the hospitals have this, people don't realise what paperwork takes so many doctors so long to complete, but they're are several reports to be done on any one day.

Pompey Magnus wrote: »

If it was said (and I am far from convinced) then the significance depends on the context. If the consultant was a non-Catholic and said it with a roll of the eyes and a sigh then it becomes a much less sinister phrase.

My own reaction when I first heard it was this seems to be a more plausible explanation for the phrase than the way the media have portrayed it. Just because someone says "This is a Catholic country" does not require the person to approve with the sentiment, it could suggest the exact opposite depending on how it was said.

This is a very good point. Doctors decisions are not governed by religious beliefs but by their medical training on all matters. We see this time and time again when Jehovah Witnesses refuse blood transfusions and it ends in the courts. Doctors made decisions on the medical evidence at hand not a higher power.