Faith wrote: » I feel constantly frustrated by the whole debate. Constantly. Why some people feel it's their god-given right to dictate what others do with their body will forever remain a mystery to me.
Morgase wrote: » Same here. If I hear "real and substantial risk to the life of the mother" once more, I might just explode. And as for suicide not being a "proper risk" it shows what this country's attitudes towards mental health really are.
lazygal wrote: » http://m.rte.ie/news/touch/2013/0424/385417-psychiatrists-will-not-take-part-in-abortion-panel/ Could this throw a spanner in the works? Or will psychiatrists with their own agendas take up the work?
Irish psychiatrists have said they will not participate in any compulsory assessment of pregnant women who have suicidal ideation and are seeking an abortion. The College of Psychiatry in Ireland said today its members will not be the country's "social police". The president of the representative body for psychiatrists said that forcing vulnerable women to undergo mandatory psychiatric assessments of up to 12 people was abusive. Speaking to RTÉ News, Dr Anthony McCarthy said compelling psychiatrists to take part in such a system was abusing their profession, which is supposed to offer comfort, compassion and support to people in vulnerable situations. Dr McCarthy said the Government has to deal with the abortion issue and legislate adequately for it, and should not pass the social control of a situation onto psychiatrists. He said it was the position of the college that they would not take part in such panels of forced assessments. Dr McCarthy said psychiatrists would be happy to continue to provide second opinions, as is normal professional practice, but would not "collude" in any process of formalised compulsory assessment panels. Psychiatrists would not act as judges, tasked with assessing whether a woman was feeling suicidal, he said. He said asking psychiatrists to test the truth of women's stories was extremely abusive.
OldNotWIse wrote: » It's actually real, substantial and probable. Everybpody gets that wrong.
kylith wrote: » . Why isn't 'I don't want to be pregnant' enough of a reason? QUOTE] Because the 8th ammendment specifically protects the right to life of the unborn child.
Morgase wrote: » Ok, thanks What annoys me about it is that whoever came up with that was clearly somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about biology. It's impossible to define when you go from a risk to health to a risk to life. It's just unworkable.
OldNotWIse wrote: » kylith wrote: » . Why isn't 'I don't want to be pregnant' enough of a reason? QUOTE] Because the 8th ammendment specifically protects the right to life of the unborn child. Can you protect a life that they don't have? Since the jury is still on on exactly when you can consider a foetus alive.
OldNotWIse wrote: » I agree. Whatever about whether you believe or not that suicide should eb a ground, I think its ridic that anyone who try to quantify or qualify a suicidal claim. How many people die by suicide every year and what do their relatives usually say? We didn't see it coming. That's whats so tragic about suicide, its preventable if someone seeks help, but the nature of it means that people might not seek that help! They are asking someone to be objective and level-headed (and, from the looks of things, perform) for a panel, when they are in a state where such capabilities are diminished anyway.