8th Amendment

Atlantis50 wrote: »

There is no Twelfth Amendment to the Irish Constitution.

The failure of the 12th amendment, to remove the right to travel, is what guarantees that right, iirc.

Does that in some way disprove the point the poster was making?

SW wrote: »

Knew that link reminded me of something I'd read before.

The position of the IMO is expressed by representative votes of their members at their AGM.

If you think the votes are unrepresentative, where was the outcry among the other thousands of doctors/IMO members seeking to have the vote overturned?

Why didn't they insist on putting the questions about rape and foetal abnormality on their agenda again in 2014 if they viewed the 2013 votes as being unrepresentative of their views?

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Really?

Which doctor was found to be negligent? The answer is none. iirc, the medical council found there was no case to answer. So the medical council don't back your fantasy, nor does the coroner who recorded that the death was due to medical misadventure, which is not the same as medical negligence.

No negligence?

Someone (an 'expert' here on Savita's death) should tell Praveen Halappanavar he's making a terrible mistake in his legal case:

"THE doctor who treated Savita Halappanavar at a Galway hospital has been named as a co-defendant in an action being taken by her husband Praveen for negligence.

Dr Katherine Astbury and the Health Service Executive (HSE) are being sued by Mr Halappanavar following the death of his wife Savita at University Hospital Galway on October 28 last.

In papers lodged with the High Court last week, the personal injury summons states that Ms Halappanavar's constitutional right to life was breached.

It outlines more than 30 issues of alleged negligence which it claims led to her death.

These include a failure to monitor and properly treat the young dentist and a failure to terminate the pregnancy when it became clear that Ms Halappanavar's life was at risk."

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/savitas-husband-to-sue-her-doctor-for-negligence-29596560.html

The last point of negligence is particularly noteworthy - failure to terminate the pregnancy when it became clear that Ms Halappanavar's life was at risk.

According to an updated article on the case from December 2014, the HSE has admitted liability and nine staff members have been disciplined.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/praveen-to-give-evidence-in-negligence-case-to-be-heard-in-early-2015-30865559.html

Why would that be the case if there was no medical negligence and the clinicians were constrained by the law from acting?

The answer, of course, is that medical negligence is central to Savita's death.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Well that's some statement to make considering there isn't an obstetrician in the country (or even a good proportion of doctors in other specialties) who hasn't crossed paths with Dr Boylan or Holles St! He was well placed to give evidence, being one of our most experienced obstetricians and the clinical director of our National Maternity Hospital. He has the welfare of pregnant women as his primary interest and is to be congratulated for being one of their most vocal supporters in this country, despite the scurrilous, and unfair remarks that have been made about him.

Why restrict getting 'expert opinion' from Ireland only?

Someone who had a professional relationship with one of the key participants in a case should not have been selected to pass judgement on that participants professional actions and/or competency.

And as I've already posted, other experienced obstetricians do not share Boylan's general view on the current legal situation in Ireland regarding abortion.

Atlantis50 wrote: »

The poster made a factually incorrect claim as have you in this post.

Allow me to correct myself: the proposed Twelfth Amendment, which would not accept suicidality as valid grounds for an abortion, was NOT passed, nor was the proposed 25th Amendment which would have the same effect.

anothernight wrote: »

I think you'll find that the HIQA report was not an investigation on her death, but a review of maternity services.



In fact, the report completely skirts around the issue of medical termination. Not one word of that report is related to Savita's request. Don't you think that's odd? When it came out, HIQA came under considerable criticism for this, including from medical quarters. Doesn't bother you at all, I'm sure.

Regardless, it's common for reports on the same issue to give slightly different results. It is clear that there was negligence in her death, otherwise she likely wouldn't have died at all. But why do you choose to ignore the HSE report, which dealt specifically with the investigation into her death? Why listen only to a report that outright states that it is not an investigation but a review of records, and that deals, in fact, with patient safety as a whole?

just a point of clarification - it's not clear at all that there was negligence. The medical council found that Dr Asbury had no case to answer in relation to her professional performance, and afaik, no other doctor has been sanctioned by he medical council or the courts.
Mistakes and systems failures happened, but that does not equate to negligence.
It's fairly widely accepted that there was no legal basis to terminate the pregnancy until the Wednesday morning, and it's also widely acknowledged that given the virulence of the E. Coli bacteria that caused the infection, there's every chance that she would not have survived, even if a termination had been performed at that stage - which was only a few hours before the decision was made to terminate. So I think it's unfair to say that 'there was negligence otherwise she wouldn't have died'

Atlantis50 wrote: »

No negligence?

Someone (an 'expert' here on Savita's death) should tell Praveen Halappanavar he's making a terrible mistake in his legal case:

Ah - ok, since you've decided that there was negligence we can dispense with the court proceedings! "

The last point of negligence is particularly noteworthy - failure to terminate the pregnancy when it became clear that Ms Halappanavar's life was at risk.

Well this is quite the 'face palm' moment!
When did it 'become clear' that her life was at risk do you think? Isn't that the crux of the issue? Isn't that the reason that doctors feel encumbered by the 8th amendment? Isn't that why they have been asking for clarity for years?
Dr Asbury felt her legal obligations were only met on the Wednesday - she says her failure to act sooner was because of the law. Now others have come forward to say they would have acted sooner - but of course they say this in the comfort of their homes or offices without an ill patient and the prospect of a long spell behind bars if they get it wrong.

The difficult decisions doctors have to make should be medical ones, not legal ones.

Why restrict getting 'expert opinion' from Ireland only?

right. Because that's what happened, was it? Of course opinion from outside was gotten!

But it is important to get opinion from medics who are practicing in Ireland. Because they are somewhat unique in having to deal with the ridiculous situation here.

Black Menorca wrote: »

Potentially there might be no suicide due to pregnancy.

You are refusing to admit that suicide could be linked to crisis pregnancies because you can't handle what that means if it is true.

It is very, very likely to be true. You have the choice of continuing to deny that it's possible, or admitting to yourself that actually sometimes a desperate woman will commit suicide because she is pregnant.

It might require you to rethink your position, not an easy thing to do, but hey, if you consider yourself a moral/ethical person no doubt you will do the right thing and be honest with yourself about it.

swampgas wrote: »

You are refusing to admit that suicide could be linked to crisis pregnancies because you can't handle what that means if it is true.

It is very, very likely to be true. You have the choice of continuing to deny that it's possible, or admitting to yourself that actually sometimes a desperate woman will commit suicide because she is pregnant.

It might require you to rethink your position, not an easy thing to do, but hey, if you consider yourself a moral/ethical person no doubt you will do the right thing and be honest with yourself about it.

Let's not forget that when asked (by SW and myself) what kind of evidence he would actually accept as evidence, he refused point blank to answer.

Black Menorca wrote: »

The vocal threat of suicide is no justification for the killing of an unborn baby.

Suppose it's not an unborn baby but a four week old embryo/foetus?

And suppose a team of psychiatrists confirm that the woman is truly suicidal?

Why would you want to take such a risk with somone's life, for something that might become a baby, given time, but certainly isn't one yet?

Surely deliberately putting someone's life at risk is also very wrong?

SW wrote: »

what do you propose? Detain the woman until she delivers the child?

No, I think he'd like to see an honest to goodness attempt. None of your half hearted attempts either.