Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Consultant 'refused abortion plea'

Options
1…910111214

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    I think you're misunderstanding my post.

    I am not an anti abortion nutter. I do think that we need to legislate. If it were up to me we would go a lot further in the legislation.

    However, from what I have read of the inquest, it appears either premature or inappropriate for Peter Boylan to say that an abortion was not a practical proposition, because it may be the case that the law is more liberal than he is giving it credit for.

    Which is why, I agree, we need legislation - to clarify the law.


    No I understood you perfectly.

    But I think you missed my point. In the situation of life and death situations, the law should not be so unclear to medical practitioners that they have to seek expert legal opinions in order to make a clinical decision. So whilst you say they law may be more liberal, in theory, than the expert clinicians think it is - the fact that they are unsure of that and have to check with each other/legal types in what should be a fairly straightforward decision means that, in effect, the law is too restrictive. 'Liberal' in theory, but restrictive in practice due to lack of clarity.


  • Options
    #393
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    opinion guy wrote: »
    No I understood you perfectly.

    But I think you missed my point. In the situation of life and death situations, the law should not be so unclear to medical practitioners that they have to seek expert legal opinions in order to make a clinical decision. So whilst you say they law may be more liberal, in theory, than the expert clinicians think it is - the fact that they are unsure of that and have to check with each other/legal types in what should be a fairly straightforward decision means that, in effect, the law is too restrictive. 'Liberal' in theory, but restrictive in practice due to lack of clarity.

    How is that relevant to what I've just said?

    My central points

    (1) In the legal sense, Peter Boylan cannot definitively state that abortion was not a practical proposition. This is due to lack of clarity as to the meaning of of 'substantial risk' to the mother's life, under which circumstances a termination may be carried out in accordance with the law. It was inappropriate for him to draw a legal conclusion in the course of his evidence.

    (2) The law must be clarified for medical practitioners and for the welfare of expectant parents.

    Are we not agreed on these points?


  • Options
    #394
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,001 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    How is that relevant to what I've just said?

    My central points

    (1) In the legal sense, Peter Boylan cannot definitively state that abortion was not a practical proposition. This is due to lack of clarity as to the meaning of of 'substantial risk' to the mother's life, under which circumstances a termination may be carried out in accordance with the law. It was inappropriate for him to draw a legal conclusion in the course of his evidence.

    (2) The law must be clarified for medical practitioners and for the welfare of expectant parents.

    Are we not agreed on these points?

    No. I don't consider that he drew a legal conclusion. He pointed out that the uncertainty of the law led to a more risky clinical course and that that would not have happened had the law not been ambiguous. That is not a legal opinion - its his clinical assessment of how the case unfolded and weighing the risks based on his expertise. Thats what he is there to do.


  • Options
    #395
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    opinion guy wrote: »
    No. I don't consider that he drew a legal conclusion.
    However, terminating her pregnancy was not a practical proposition for the doctors treating her at this time because of the legal situation in Ireland, he said.

    That is his interpretation of the legal situation on abortion.

    How on Earth is delineating one's interpretation of the law not a legal conclusion?


  • Options
    #396
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    How on Earth is delineating one's interpretation of the law not a legal conclusion?

    Well I suppose that on each occasion I drive below 70mph on the motorway, I am interpreting the law and drawing a legal conclusion....

    Obstetricians have to interpret the law and draw legal conclusions frequently (as do people in almost any walk of life). It is entirely appropriate for dr boylan, as an expert obstetrician, to make a legal interpretation that he and other obstetricians are frequently required to make.

    It is not lawyers who interpret law in day to day obstetric practice. Obstetricians do.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    drkpower wrote: »
    It is entirely appropriate for dr boylan, as an expert obstetrician to make a legal interpretation
    The first fact that I was making was that Boylan was drawing a legal conclusion., the poster in question disagreed, so you would hardly seem to be speaking in agreement with him here.

    Peter Boylan may or he may not be correct. Therefore, the second point is that for obstetricians to make sound legal conclusions, the law must be clarified. What exactly are you disagreeing with?

    The *whole point* of the controversy is the lack of clarity surrounding the legal permissibility of abortion in Ireland. What exactly are you guys contending? That Peter Boylan can comfortably make these sorts of judgements? That there is no lack of clarity?


  • Options
    #398
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    The *whole point* of the controversy is the lack of clarity surrounding the legal permissibility of abortion in Ireland. What exactly are you guys contending? That Peter Boylan can comfortably make these sorts of judgements? That there is no lack of clarity?
    I'd expect a lot of the argument is just around folk saying the same thing in different ways. The lack of clear legislation on abortion is what that ECHR ruling was about; it doesn't require Ireland to change what is and isn't permissible, it just demands that Ireland clearly states what is and isn't permissible.

    On the other side, medical practice and the law do collide, which I what I think ye both acknowledge. For the sake of argument, doctors may need to apply to the Courts before carrying out certain treatments. The issue of giving a blood transfusion to people with religious objections to them is an obvious example of that.


  • Options
    #399
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/death-was-medical-misadventure-29207062.html

    Indian dentist Savita Halappanavar who was refused a termination in an Irish hospital as she miscarried, died as a result of medical misadventure, a jury at her inquest has unanimously ruled.<....>

    The coroner told the jury of six men and five women that they could return a verdict of medical misadventure or a narrative verdict. The coroner said a narrative verdict would simply find that Savita Halappanavar was 17 weeks pregnant when admitted to hospital with a pending miscarriage, that her membranes ruptured and she developed sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock and died.

    He told the jury they had an option of returning a verdict of misadventure if they find there were "system failures or deficiencies" in her medical care before she died. Dr MacLoughlin warned that neither verdict could put blame on any person or persons.
    Sounds like a sensible verdict.


  • Options
    #400
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,714 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    I hope the poor woman will be allowed rest in peace.


  • Options
    #401
    missingtime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,942 ✭✭✭missingtime


    Just read on Rte news that it was their wedding anniversary today. That's heartbreaking that is.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    homerjay2005
    Registered Users Posts: 29,346 ✭✭✭✭homerjay2005


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    I hope the poor woman will be allowed rest in peace.

    seeing as her husband still believes no answers have been given to why she died,i dont think this will go away too soon.

    essentially, he wants the doctors who treated her to be prosecuted. no one factor caused her death, but he seems adament that somebody "killed" her looks like.


  • Options
    #403
    Truman Burbank
    Registered Users Posts: 543 ✭✭✭Truman Burbank


    homerjay2005 wrote: »
    he seems adament that somebody "killed" her looks like.

    I believe a more appropriate interpretation would be "They certainly didn't (try to) save her".


  • Options
    #404
    homerjay2005
    Registered Users Posts: 29,346 ✭✭✭✭homerjay2005


    Truman Burbank wrote: »
    I believe a more appropriate interpretation would be "They certainly didn't (try to) save her".

    of course they did, thats f*cking nonsense.


  • Options
    #405
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    Just encase anyone wants to get involved or come to the next rally.

    http://www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/calendar/upcoming/
    April 22, 2013
    Open Meeting for all Working Groups

    Our monthly meetings provide an easy entry point for people who want to get more involved. If you are receiving updates but would like to become more active in the Abortion Rights Campaign, please feel free to come along to our next meeting on
    22nd April 2013 at 7pm in the Teacher’s Club, 36 Parnell Square West, Dublin 1.


    April 29, 2013
    Legislate for X Protest – Action on X

    Action on X demand X legislation by the summer. It must include:
    • The risk of suicide as grounds for abortion
    • No more than two medical practitioners’ opinions to approve an abortion
    • State-wide access
    • Access to abortion if a foetus has a fatal abnormality and cannot survive
    • Decriminalisation of abortion

    A large majority support X legislation – shown in recent Irish Times and Sunday Business Post polls. The Dáil must act for the majority – not defer to a minority.

    An EU conference on Gender Equality will take place in Dublin Castle on April 29. Come and demand that the Irish government legislates to ensure women get equal medical treatment to men: the right to any treatment needed to protect their lives.

    Join Action on X at City Hall Plaza, April 29th – 6pm


  • Options
    #406
    otto_26
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭otto_26


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    She didn't realise it was a life-saving situation until it was too late but even so, surely we shouldn't be putting our medical professionals in a situation where doing something that is standard practice in other countries is placing them in even theoretical legal jeopardy...

    The fact that thousands of abortions have been done in Ireland where a mother's life was at physical risk I find it hard to understand then how this has anything to do with laws?

    It's about a doctor not doing their job properly.


  • Options
    #407
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,942 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    At physical risk shouldn't have to mean at death's door though. Look at the Michelle Harte case. Her life was at risk (and she did die) but wasn't deemed to be at an immediate enough risk to have a termination in Ireland. There are likely hundreds of women in similar situations being shipped off to England at extremely vulnerable times in their lives.

    ⛥ ̸̱̼̞͛̀̓̈́͘#C̶̼̭͕̎̿͝R̶̦̮̜̃̓͌O̶̬͙̓͝W̸̜̥͈̐̾͐Ṋ̵̲͔̫̽̎̚͠ͅT̸͓͒͐H̵͔͠È̶̖̳̘͍͓̂W̴̢̋̈͒͛̋I̶͕͑͠T̵̻͈̜͂̇Č̵̤̟̑̾̂̽H̸̰̺̏̓ ̴̜̗̝̱̹͛́̊̒͝⛥



  • Options
    #408
    drkpower
    Registered Users Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    otto_26 wrote: »
    The fact that thousands of abortions have been done in Ireland where a mother's life was at physical risk I find it hard to understand then how this has anything to do with laws.

    Can you appreciate that 'risk' is not static; risk can be of varying degrees. Risk on Day one can be non existent, on day two it can be present but negligible, and by Day three, it can be grave. Risk can also progress -often very very quickly - to a point that it is unmanageable.

    One of the difficulties in this case is that the law is unclear as to what level of risk justifies a termination. Drs astbury and boylan believed that the risk on Monday and Tuesday did not fulfil the real and substantial test in Irish law. They believed that by Wednesday, it did, but by then it was too late.

    Of course, they may have been wrong. I'm sure you will find medical and constitutional lawyers who will argue convincingly that the risk on mon or tues fulfilled the real and substantial test. But you will also find medical and constitutional lawyers who believe that the risk wasn't sufficient on mon and Tuesday.

    And there is the problem. As long as that level of doubt exists in the law, there remains a risk that this type of case will happen again.


  • Options
    #409
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,158 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    otto_26 wrote: »
    The fact that thousands of abortions have been done in Ireland where a mother's life was at physical risk I find it hard to understand then how this has anything to do with laws?

    It's about a doctor not doing their job properly.

    Didn't the consultant actually say that if the termination had been given when it was requested, rather than waiting for a time when it was legally allowed, she would have probably survived.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/19/savita-halappanavar-abortion-midwife
    The evidence given at the inquest shows unequivocally that Halappanavar would have received different treatment in a different jurisdiction. Astbury admitted as much, and expert witness Dr Peter Boylan has said Halappanavar would most likely be alive if she'd been given a termination, as she requested, within two days of admission to hospital.

    See, this was two mistakes. Not performing the termination and then not spotting the complications that arose from not performing the termination. She would probably not have been in a position where "medical misadventure" would be an issue if the termination had been performed.


  • Options
    #410
    otto_26
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭otto_26


    Grayson wrote: »
    Didn't the consultant actually say that if the termination had been given when it was requested, rather than waiting for a time when it was legally allowed, she would have probably survived.

    It's legally allowed at all times when the mother's life is at physical risk i.e. (thousands of abortions when the mother's life was at risk been done in Ireland)

    This is a case of the doctor not doing their job properly, not laws.


  • Options
    #411
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,158 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    otto_26 wrote: »
    It's legally allowed at all times when the mother's life is at physical risk i.e. (thousands of abortions when the mother's life was at risk been done in Ireland)

    This is a case of the doctor not doing their job properly, not laws.

    Which part states clearly that it should have happened in this case?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    otto_26
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭otto_26


    drkpower wrote: »
    Can you appreciate that 'risk' is not static; risk can be of varying degrees. Risk on Day one can be non existent, on day two it can be present but negligible, and by Day three, it can be grave. Risk can also progress -often very very quickly - to a point that it is unmanageable.

    One of the difficulties in this case is that the law is unclear as to what level of risk justifies a termination. Drs astbury and boylan believed that the risk on Monday and Tuesday did not fulfil the real and substantial test in Irish law. They believed that by Wednesday, it did, but by then it was too late.

    But the law states that if the mother's life is at risk then termination has to be done. It's the doctors job to understand when the mother's life is at risk. That's why I stated it's a case of the doctor not doing their job properly, not laws...

    How is it that thousands of terminations have been done in Ireland when the mother's life has been at risk without any problems? Why didn't the law affect them?


  • Options
    #413
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    otto_26 wrote: »
    This is a case of the doctor not doing their job properly, not laws.

    The law was at fault for not being specific enough.

    It is too general, it provides no means or procedures to objectively decide when abortion is allowed which leaves doctors liable for decisions they need to make in tough circumstances. That hinders their ability to do their job effectively.


  • Options
    #414
    otto_26
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭otto_26


    Grayson wrote: »
    Which part states clearly that it should have happened in this case?

    That's the doctor's job to state?


  • Options
    #415
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    otto_26 wrote: »
    It's legally allowed at all times when the mother's life is at physical risk i.e. (thousands of abortions when the mother's life was at risk been done in Ireland)

    This is a case of the doctor not doing their job properly, not laws.

    You'll find that hostpitals are not equipped with a "Could Be About To Start To Be At Risk Of Dying" detector.


  • Options
    #416
    otto_26
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭otto_26


    Seachmall wrote: »
    The law was at fault for not being specific enough.

    It is too general, it provides no means or procedures to objectively decide when abortion is allowed which leaves doctors liable for decisions they need to make in tough circumstances. That hinders their ability to do their job effectively.

    How is it that thousands of terminations have been done in Ireland when the mother's life has been at risk without any problems? Why didn't the law affect them?


  • Options
    #417
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    otto_26 wrote: »
    How is it that thousands of terminations have been done in Ireland when the mother's life has been at risk without any problems? Why didn't the law affect them?


    Unless you can cite specific instances and numbers thereof, its pointless throwing that in.


  • Options
    #418
    Ash.J.Williams
    Registered Users Posts: 20,929 ✭✭✭✭Ash.J.Williams


    otto_26 wrote: »
    How is it that thousands of terminations have been done in Ireland when the mother's life has been at risk without any problems? Why didn't the law affect them?

    Because doctors usually put common sense and professionalism before vague unrealistic laws


  • Options
    #419
    otto_26
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭otto_26


    Nodin wrote: »
    You'll find that hostpitals are not equipped with a "Could Be About To Start To Be At Risk Of Dying" detector.

    Thousands of successful terminations in Ireland when a mother's life was at risk without any problems? How does this show hospitals are not equipped?

    It's a case of doctor not doing their job properly.


  • Options
    #420
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    otto_26 wrote: »
    How is it that thousands of terminations have been done in Ireland when the mother's life has been at risk without any problems? Why didn't the law affect them?

    I'm not privy to the details of those cases. Are you?


    And the idea that nobody has been convicted under that law in the past which means nobody will in the future is silly.


    Laws should always be specific and comprehensive. This one isn't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    otto_26
    Registered Users Posts: 518 ✭✭✭otto_26


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    Because doctors usually put common sense and professionalism before vague unrealistic laws

    So the doctor was at fault.


Advertisement