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

Clinicaly dead pregnant woman on life support

Options
1…3839414344

Comments

  • Options
    #1202
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    RobertKK wrote: »
    So were their fears justified so you can say the 8th amendment applied?

    It was clear she was dead. It would be like a car accident and the driver was over the alcohol limit and he crashes into another car killing themselves and the driver of the other car, and the guards arresting the dead person to charge the dead driver with the death of the other driver and driving over the alcohol limit.
    You don't apply law to dead people. The hospital applied law to a dead person, it was clear the high court was going to say turn off the machines for dignity in death.
    People who used the 8th amendment in the first place and applied it were proven wrong.
    So we have people here using something applied wrongly as if it was used correctly to argue it should be removed.
    Yes if the ruling had been the machines stay running, then you would have an argument. You can't use something applied wrongly to argue the fears were justified and the 8th amendment was the problem, when it was very poor judgment that was the problem.
    This moves the issue to what it was about which is dignity in death and how law doesn't apply to dead people.
    Read the ****ing judgement. The 8th did apply. This has been explained again and again. Simply ignoring these explanations and repeating the same incorrect assertions does not make your wilful misrepresentation correct. You are wrong. Deal with it.

    MrP


  • Options
    #1203
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,095 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    RobertKK wrote: »
    So were their fears justified so you can say the 8th amendment applied?

    It was clear she was dead. It would be like a car accident and the driver was over the alcohol limit and he crashes into another car killing themselves and the driver of the other car, and the guards arresting the dead person to charge the dead driver with the death of the other driver and driving over the alcohol limit.
    You don't apply law to dead people. The hospital applied law to a dead person, it was clear the high court was going to say turn off the machines for dignity in death.
    People who used the 8th amendment in the first place and applied it were proven wrong.
    So we have people here using something applied wrongly as if it was used correctly to argue it should be removed.
    Yes if the ruling had been the machines stay running, then you would have an argument. You can't use something applied wrongly to argue the fears were justified and the 8th amendment was the problem, when it was very poor judgment that was the problem.
    This moves the issue to what it was about which is dignity in death and how law doesn't apply to dead people.
    No, you can't claim that just because the court decided one way, there was never any need for the court case in the first place. The problem wasn't that she was dead, it was that the fetus wasn't dead, and in Ireland (uniquely) the fetus has its own right to life, which may conflict with the woman's rights. That is because of the 8th, and only because of that.

    HSE lawyers were unable to tell the doctors they could turn off the life support, that's why it went to court , so it wasn't the doctors who were wrong, if anything it was the HSE legal team. And they didn't even have costs against them, which again indicates that they did the right thing in letting the question be referred to court.

    So no, your comparison is just wrong. It wasn't "poor judgment" or the court would have made them pay the costs of the case - which must have been significant, over the holiday season.


  • Options
    #1204
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    RobertKK wrote: »
    So were their fears justified so you can say the 8th amendment applied?

    It was clear she was dead. It would be like a car accident and the driver was over the alcohol limit and he crashes into another car killing themselves and the driver of the other car, and the guards arresting the dead person to charge the dead driver with the death of the other driver and driving over the alcohol limit.
    You don't apply law to dead people. The hospital applied law to a dead person, it was clear the high court was going to say turn off the machines for dignity in death.
    People who used the 8th amendment in the first place and applied it were proven wrong.
    So we have people here using something applied wrongly as if it was used correctly to argue it should be removed.
    Yes if the ruling had been the machines stay running, then you would have an argument. You can't use something applied wrongly to argue the fears were justified and the 8th amendment was the problem, when it was very poor judgment that was the problem.
    This moves the issue to what it was about which is dignity in death and how law doesn't apply to dead people.

    And we wonder why change is so difficult . People become so invested in a point of view they are incapable of seeing or accepting opposing viewpoints even when delivered by a Judge.

    Robert I have no doubt you are a sincere person and you hold these views in good faith but you and others like you make the repeal of the 8th inevitable ( no matter how long it takes) as you will not tolerate any compromise .

    In the long run you are your own worst enemy,


  • Options
    #1205
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Read the ****ing judgement. The 8th did apply. This has been explained again and again. Simply ignoring these explanations and repeating the same incorrect assertions does not make your wilful misrepresentation correct. You are wrong. Deal with it.

    MrP

    Why was there a high court case?


  • Options
    #1206
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    marienbad wrote: »
    And we wonder why change is so difficult . People become so invested in a point of view they are incapable of seeing or accepting opposing viewpoints even when delivered by a Judge.

    Robert I have no doubt you are a sincere person and you hold these views in good faith but you and others like you make the repeal of the 8th inevitable ( no matter how long it takes) as you will not tolerate any compromise .

    In the long run you are your own worst enemy,

    people are using this case for political means. The family went to the high court to allow their family member to rest in peace given she was dead.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1207
    Call me Al
    Registered Users Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭Call me Al


    RobertKk, have you read any of the legal analysis on this morning's papers? By legal experts who work in law and would I think be fairly up to date on what rights a mother and a fetus have in cases like this? There's a great article in this mornings Irish Times for starters. Unless you're legally qualified to comment on whether or not the consultants were technically correct in bringing this case to end treatment? Or maybe you really just have a belief or a sense that they can take the law into their own hands and just should not worry about any consequences.

    By the way the fact that this woman was allowed legal representation in court, who in turn argued that the life support be maintained to facilitate the pregnancy, would indicate that technically in legal terms she was still alive although we all agree this life was being artificially maintained.


  • Options
    #1208
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    RobertKK wrote: »
    people are using this case for political means. The family went to the high court to allow their family member to rest in peace given she was dead.

    And they had to do so because of the eighth amendment, no other reason.


  • Options
    #1209
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    lazygal wrote: »
    And they had to do so because of the eighth amendment, no other reason.

    The family had to because the hospital and HSE were wrong.


  • Options
    #1210
    Baggy Trousers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭Baggy Trousers


    Does the high court decision force a change to the constitution or is it solely up to the FG/Lab government to decide if they will bother legislating?


  • Options
    #1211
    Call me Al
    Registered Users Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭Call me Al


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The family had to because the hospital and HSE were wrong.

    The hospital and the HSE had no other option if they wanted to ensure they were operating within the confines of the constitution.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1212
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    It's ironic, the eighth amendment was supposed to put paid to any abortion of any kind here and end the debate for once and for all. Only by doing so we've been forced to deal with one abortion issue after another for 30 years and families are being put through the legal system because of it, yet there are still people who defend putting prescriptive ideology on medical practice into the constitution and keeping it there.


  • Options
    #1213
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Call me Al wrote: »
    RobertKk, have you read any of the legal analysis on this morning's papers? By legal experts who work in law and would I think be fairly up to date on what rights a mother and a fetus have in cases like this? There's a great article in this mornings Irish Times for starters. Unless you're legally qualified to comment on whether or not the consultants were technically correct in bringing this case to end treatment? Or maybe you really just have a belief or a sense that they can take the law into their own hands and just should not worry about any consequences.

    By the way the fact that this woman was allowed legal representation in court, who in turn argued that the life support be maintained to facilitate the pregnancy, would indicate that technically in legal terms she was still alive although we all agree this life was being artificially maintained.

    Irish Times is a very biased newspaper.


  • Options
    #1214
    Baggy Trousers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭Baggy Trousers


    Call me Al wrote: »
    The hospital and the HSE had no other option if they wanted to ensure they were operating within the confines of the constitution.

    Is it true that there were similar cases in the past where the doctors turned off the machine rather than seek legal advice?

    I actually think the HSE were excessively cruel in this case given the circumstances. Maybe they needed to make a point.


  • Options
    #1215
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Baggy Trousers wrote: »
    Does the high court decision force a change to the constitution or is it solely up to the FG/Lab government to decide if they will bother legislating?
    Courts only rule on law, they don't make it. But this case may open up the debate on termination of pregnancy where a foetus won't survive for other reasons.


  • Options
    #1216
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    RobertKK wrote: »
    So were their fears justified so you can say the 8th amendment applied?

    It was clear she was dead. It would be like a car accident and the driver was over the alcohol limit and he crashes into another car killing themselves and the driver of the other car, and the guards arresting the dead person to charge the dead driver with the death of the other driver and driving over the alcohol limit.
    You don't apply law to dead people. The hospital applied law to a dead person, it was clear the high court was going to say turn off the machines for dignity in death.
    People who used the 8th amendment in the first place and applied it were proven wrong.
    So we have people here using something applied wrongly as if it was used correctly to argue it should be removed.
    Yes if the ruling had been the machines stay running, then you would have an argument. You can't use something applied wrongly to argue the fears were justified and the 8th amendment was the problem, when it was very poor judgment that was the problem.
    This moves the issue to what it was about which is dignity in death and how law doesn't apply to dead people.
    Hindsight is handy alright.


  • Options
    #1217
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    lazygal wrote: »
    It's ironic, the eighth amendment was supposed to put paid to any abortion of any kind here and end the debate for once and for all. Only by doing so we've been forced to deal with one abortion issue after another for 30 years and families are being put through the legal system because of it, yet there are still people who defend putting prescriptive ideology on medical practice into the constitution and keeping it there.

    This wasn't an abortion issue.


  • Options
    #1218
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    RobertKK wrote: »
    The family had to because the hospital and HSE were wrong.

    Why did the parties all argue the same points then? It wasn't an adversarial hearing like some American courtroom drama


  • Options
    #1219
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    RobertKK wrote: »
    This wasn't an abortion issue.

    Yes it was. You can keep saying it wasn't but you're wrong. And I know you'll never admit you're wrong and that abortion is and should be part of normal clinical practice in dealing with pregnant women, but you're wrong.


  • Options
    #1220
    Call me Al
    Registered Users Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭Call me Al


    RobertKK wrote: »
    This wasn't an abortion issue.

    No it's an 8th amendment issue, yet again.


  • Options
    #1221
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Call me Al wrote: »
    No it's an 8th amendment issue, yet again.

    Which was introduced to stop so called permissive abortion law here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1222
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    lazygal wrote: »
    Yes it was. You can keep saying it wasn't but you're wrong. And I know you'll never admit you're wrong and that abortion is and should be part of normal clinical practice in dealing with pregnant women, but you're wrong.

    Who in court argued this woman wanted an abortion?


  • Options
    #1223
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    Baggy Trousers wrote: »

    I actually think the HSE were excessively cruel in this case given the circumstances. Maybe they needed to make a point.
    They likely felt they needed to ensure they were practising within the law, which was not perfectly clear in this uncommon case.


  • Options
    #1224
    Call me Al
    Registered Users Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭Call me Al


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Irish Times is a very biased newspaper.

    Is that it? Our of my whole large two paragraphs is that the only thinly you feel you want to mention.
    I asked were you legally more qualified than those who wrote this morning's many legal contributions?

    And the fact that you don't mention my point that she was legally still alive.... Does that mean you concur?


  • Options
    #1225
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Who in court argued this woman wanted an abortion?

    Council for the foetus argued in regard to its right to life. If the medics thought it could be considered a termination of.pregnancy under the eighth amendment to turn off life support they wouldn't do so as they'd face 14 years in jail.
    I don't know why I'm bothering to respond though as you seem to think the eighth amendment is grand and somehow protects women and tiny unborn babies.


  • Options
    #1226
    Call me Al
    Registered Users Posts: 3,022 ✭✭✭Call me Al


    Baggy Trousers wrote: »
    Is it true that there were similar cases in the past where the doctors turned off the machine rather than seek legal advice?

    I actually think the HSE were excessively cruel in this case given the circumstances. Maybe they needed to make a point.
    I don't know.... Is it? Were any previous cases brought up in the courtroom the last day?


  • Options
    #1227
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    Bruthal wrote: »
    Hindsight is handy alright.

    Look back on my posts before the ruling. I have been consistent in my views.


  • Options
    #1228
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Look back on my posts before the ruling. I have been consistent in my views.

    Yes, you'll never admit you're wrong.


  • Options
    #1229
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    lazygal wrote: »
    Council for the foetus argued in regard to its right to life. If the medics thought it could be considered a termination of.pregnancy under the eighth amendment to turn off life support they wouldn't do so as they'd face 14 years in jail.
    I don't know why I'm bothering to respond though as you seem to think the eighth amendment is grand and somehow protects women and tiny unborn babies.

    Required by law to argue. But this was not about abortion. It was a court case taken by the family so their family member could be allowed die naturally and with dignity due to the HSE being wrong in what they did.


  • Options
    #1230
    Bruthal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,422 ✭✭✭✭Bruthal


    RobertKK wrote: »
    Look back on my posts before the ruling. I have been consistent in my views.

    You said the hospital applied law to a dead person. The law was tested with regard to an unborn feotus and right to life.

    If it had been a dead non pregnant person, you think your dead person law would have been tested here?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1231
    RobertKK
    Registered Users Posts: 33,739 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    lazygal wrote: »
    Yes, you'll never admit you're wrong.

    I am not changing my opinion to something I don't believe so you can feel you are right.
    I believe in what I argue as you do with your argument. I am not asking you to admit you are wrong so I can feel I won some debate.
    We both believe what we believe and that is what is allowed in a free society.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement