8th Amendment

Kev W · 17-06-2015 02:49PM

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

The amount of anti-religious crap that is spouted here is ridiculous.

The amount of religious crap kind of balances it out though.

pmasterson95 · 17-06-2015 02:59PM

The amount of disrespectful crap about forcing (physically assaulting/violence included) a woman to have a child is ridiculous.

Atlantis50 · 17-06-2015 03:11PM

volchitsa wrote: »

The court found it didn't apply in this case.

Yes. This case is the only one we're discussing. Thanks for emphasising that.

The High Court also set out its rationale which is instructive for the future.

volchitsa wrote: »

The lawyers for the hospital had been unable or unwilling to reach that decision without going to court, so presuably they felt it could have gone either way.

They were wrong. The court set them straight.

volchitsa wrote: »

In any case, it's not true that the 8th wasn't the cause of the problem - it was absolutely and completely the cause. Without the 8th, the doctors would have switched off the life support as soon as it because clear the woman was effectively dead and the baby was too damaged by all that had gone on trying the save the woman's life.

The 8th doesn't allow that decision to be taken on medical grounds alone, it has to be done on legal criteria - and yet the lawyers refused to decide too.

In no other European country would that have happened against the family's and doctors' opinions - only in Ireland, and only because of the 8th amendment.

The doctors and hospital lawyers were wrong and the court set them straight.

Don't you find it remarkable that such misunderstandings and cases are exceedingly rare given that the 8th Amendment has now been in place for 32 years despite the impression you give where it would seem we should be seeing difficulties on a much more frequent basis?

The 8th Amendment has achieved its purpose well and will likely do so for many years to come.

No Voter And Proud · 17-06-2015 03:14PM

I think I've expressed my views enough for one day on this thread, I'll sign off now before I start getting warnings again.

Atlantis50 · 17-06-2015 03:14PM

SW wrote: »

And none of the concerns are that the psychiatrists were wrong, only that some information may not have been discussed. How is that an abuse of the Act?

As I've already posted, concerns were expressed and I'm not in a position to know what those concerns are in detail as I am not one of the medical professionals with knowledge of the case.

traprunner · 17-06-2015 03:20PM

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

The amount of anti-religious crap that is spouted here is ridiculous.

I was just trying to understand religion.

Atlantis50 · 17-06-2015 03:22PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

The amount of disrespectful crap about forcing (physically assaulting/violence included) a woman to have a child is ridiculous.

Can you link to these posts about physically assaulting/using violence against pregnant women to force them to have a child?

I've missed them.

volchitsa · 17-06-2015 03:24PM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Yes. This case is the only one we're discussing. Thanks for emphasising that.

The High Court also set out its rationale which is instructive for the future.

They were wrong. The court set them straight.

The doctors and hospital lawyers were wrong and the court set them straight.

Don't you find it remarkable that such misunderstandings and cases are exceedingly rare given that the 8th Amendment has now been in place for 32 years despite the impression you give where it would seem we should be seeing difficulties on a much more frequent basis?

The 8th Amendment has achieved its purpose well and will likely do so for many years to come.

The court certainly didn't tell them they were wrong to ask the court to decide, and the court didnt tell them it was an easy issue to decide. It actually said that it was only because of the extreme circumstances of this particular case that, on reflection, the 8th wasn't triggered.

So if the woman had been a little further on on pregnancy, the 8th would have applied. No matter how damaged the child was by its mother's illness and death, it would have to be kept inside her if it had a chance of being born alive - even if it were sure to he disabled and possibly to die with a sort time.

And you think that's a good thing? :eek:

As for the number of cases, do you really think it's a coincidence that there are several all coming out in the last few years?

Personally speaking, I'm convinced these things have always happened but families either didnt realize they could have had a choice in other countries, or they were too ashamed or distraught to go public about it.

So no, I don't think the "small" numbr of cases is in any way a justification : there is abortion on demand for Irish women who can afford it anyway, just not in Ireland, so any one of these tragic cases caused by the existence of the 8th is too much, given that it doesnt actually prevent abortion anyway.

All it does is maintain a fiction - and TBF even a single real case of hardship or suffering caused simply in order to maintain a fiction is far too much for me.

Atlantis50 · 17-06-2015 03:28PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

If they immediately unplugged it "Proud and Atlantis" would scream about murdering babies and evil hospital and some of that ilk probably attempt to sue the doctor/hospital.

Utter nonsense.

pmasterson95 wrote: »

But since sanity won that ilk just deny the case had anything to do with it. Even though they picketed the hospital and were against turning them off. Since they lost they just ignore it and try to spew different crap.

Link to proof that the hospital was picketed by pro-life groups?

johnnyskeleton · 17-06-2015 03:36PM

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

You'd know you were not a man of faith.

traprunner wrote: »

I don't need faith in a deity.

So why would anyone want to get between god and a sinner?

pmasterson95 wrote: »

You'd know you were not a man of science when you dont understand biology.

frag420 wrote: »

Only if you believe in her!! You mentioned earlier that you believe abortion it is wrong because it against the law yet now you say its becaise its a sin. Dont you ever get greedy, envious of your neighbors? Should you be punished for feeling that is 100% natural to feel as a human??

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

The amount of anti-religious crap that is spouted here is ridiculous.

Kev W wrote: »

The amount of religious crap kind of balances it out though.

pmasterson95 wrote: »

The amount of disrespectful crap about forcing (physically assaulting/violence included) a woman to have a child is ridiculous.

traprunner wrote: »

I was just trying to understand religion.

MOD: This thread is not for debating religion, nor is it for taking petty swipes. If that is all that is happening, I will lock the thread and maybe ban a few posters. Final warning.

Atlantis50 · 17-06-2015 03:47PM

volchitsa wrote: »

The court certainly didn't tell them they were wrong to ask the court to decide, and the court didnt tell them it was an easy issue to decide. It actually said that it was only because of the extreme circumstances of this particular case that, on reflection, the 8th wasn't triggered.

So if the woman had been a little further on on pregnancy, the 8th would have applied. No matter how damaged the child was by its mother's illness and death, it would have to be kept inside her if it had a chance of being born alive - even if it were sure to he disabled and possibly to die with a sort time.

And you think that's a good thing? :eek:

Seven doctors gave evidence to the court and none argued the treatment should continue or that there was any realistic prospect of her baby being born intact even if the treatment continued so clearly the hospital and their lawyers were wrong but the fact that the case went to court and they were set straight does not undermine the 8th Amendment in any way.

volchitsa wrote: »

As for the number of cases, do you really think it's a coincidence that there are several all coming out in the last few years?

Personally speaking, I'm convinced these things have always happened but families either didnt realize they could have had a choice in other countries, or they were too ashamed or distraught to go public about it.

Mere speculation on your part.

volchitsa wrote: »

So no, I don't think the "small" numbr of cases is in any way a justification : there is abortion on demand for Irish women who can afford it anyway, just not in Ireland, so any one of these tragic cases caused by the existence of the 8th is too much, given that it doesnt actually prevent abortion anyway.

All it does is maintain a fiction - and TBF even a single real case of hardship or suffering caused simply in order to maintain a fiction is far too much for me.

Why do you fail to recognise the right to life of the unborn when you refer to "hardship and suffering"?

At what stage, in your view, is the right to life engaged? At birth?

pmasterson95 · 17-06-2015 03:58PM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Can you link to these posts about physically assaulting/using violence against pregnant women to force them to have a child?

I've missed them.

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Because of a number of reasons. I don't believe that a man using physical force toward a woman is ever acceptable unless there are severe severe mitigating circumstances.

I'll qualify my statement and say the only time I would use physical force would be if she was holding an abortion tablet in her hand and was moving it toward her mouth. That would only be after attempting reasoning with her.

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Force is acceptable to prevent worse acts (abortion/murder being one of them for instance)

As proven by the miss Y case, the state agrees with me.

Here you go babe x
Force is acceptable against woman to save baby.

Apparently a woman is a person to be respected until shes is pregnant and becomes sub human with no rights to her own body.

galljga1 · 17-06-2015 05:21PM

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

The amount of anti-religious crap that is spouted here is ridiculous.

There is no such thing.

conorh91 · 17-06-2015 06:20PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

And what stopped the doctors turning off the machines immediately?

Legal uncertainty due to the absolutely freak nature of the case, and the vast moral questions that were in play.

Every single case that proceeds to a full hearing before the High Court is 'arguable', let alone those that raise such fundamental ethical questions such as the rights of the unborn.

P.P. v HSE contained such an improbable situation that it cannot be held up as proof that the 8th Amendment is problematic. Dr Peter McKenna, consultant obstetrician at the Rotunda, gave evidence that the instant case "was not merely a rare case but an absolutely extraordinary one".

Even the most careful legislative draftsmanship will never be able to quench all doubts that arise in the hurly burly of everyday life and the inevitable human disasters that cannot be legislated away.

We should take PP v HSE for what it was: one family's nightmare arising out of a rare and chaotic chain of events. It's a tragedy, not an opportunity to mount your hobby horse.

volchitsa wrote: »

The 8th doesn't allow that decision to be taken on medical grounds alone, it has to be done on legal criteria - and yet the lawyers refused to decide too.

How can you possibly permit doctors to take medical decisions which are not subject to legal scrutiny?

The fundamental decision to withdraw life-support was taken by the doctors, and not the High Court. The Court in its judgment authorised the medical team to use its discretion.

Every single clinical decision that is undertaken in Irish hospitals may be reviewed by the courts, and patients are a lot better-off for that.

Black Menorca · 17-06-2015 06:22PM

krankykitty wrote: »

This "abortion industry" thing is getting boring now. Do you also complain about the cancer industry? The dentistry industry?

Are you comparing dental treatment to delivering a lethal saline injection to an unborn baby?

Black Menorca · 17-06-2015 06:24PM

SW wrote: »

actually you do with regard to the question asked by swampgas, and you've even said as much in a previous post.

Your belief is imposed by law. So why does your belief trump that of a pregnant woman who wishes to abort?

Go ask the Oireachtas. I played no part in the vote on X legislation.

Delirium · 17-06-2015 06:25PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

Go ask the Oireachtas. I played no part in the vote on X legislation.

Still not answer.

Black Menorca · 17-06-2015 06:27PM

SW wrote: »

Still not answer.

Its the answer you're getting.

I have no control over any individual, except myself.

pmasterson95 · 17-06-2015 06:28PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

Go ask the Oireachtas. I played no part in the vote on X legislation.

So you dont know why you believe what you believe?

volchitsa · 17-06-2015 06:32PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Legal uncertainty due to the absolutely freak nature of the case, and the vast moral questions that were in play.

Every single case that proceeds to a full hearing before the High Court is 'arguable', let alone those that raise such fundamental ethical questions such as the rights of the unborn.

P.P. v HSE contained such an improbable situation that it cannot be held up as proof that the 8th Amendment is problematic. Dr Peter McKenna, consultant obstetrician at the Rotunda, gave evidence that the instant case "was not merely a rare case but an absolutely extraordinary one".

Even the most careful legislative draftsmanship will never be able to quench all doubts that arise in the hurly burly of everyday life and the inevitable human disasters that cannot be legislated away.

We should take PP v HSE for what it was: one family's nightmare arising out of a rare and chaotic chain of events. It's a tragedy, not an opportunity to mount your hobby horse.

How can you possibly permit doctors to take medical decisions which are not subject to legal scrutiny?

The fundamental decision to withdraw life-support was taken by the doctors, and not the High Court. The Court in its judgment authorised the medical team to use its discretion.

Every single clinical decision that is undertaken in Irish hospitals may be reviewed by the courts, and patients are a lot better-off for that.

But other clinical decisions are not overridden by legal decisions.

The doctors' considered medical opinion was that the baby could not possibly survive. It was for purely legal reasons only that the family was put through further trauma and suffering.

That doesn't happen with other medical decisions, which can be just as ethically fraught : when to stop cancer treatment, whether or not to amputate after a traffic accident. When to turn off life support, for heavens sake. Doctors have to take all these decisions, in accordance with the families, all the time. Legal oversight is as much part of those decisions as any others.

But only in cases where the woman is pregnant (and only in Ireland, because of the 8th amendment) are both the family and the medical team subordinate to purely legal criteria. IMO that's wrong, pure and simple.

pmasterson95 · 17-06-2015 06:33PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

Its the answer you're getting.

I have no control over any individual, except myself.

Unless is forcing them to have the children of rapists?

Black Menorca · 17-06-2015 06:53PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

So you dont know why you believe what you believe?

My simple brain is getting confused.

Black Menorca · 17-06-2015 06:55PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Unless is forcing them to have the children of rapists?

The law is very clear and makes no dispensation for a rape victim being further victimised at the hands of an abortionist. I happen to support this fully.

pmasterson95 · 17-06-2015 07:00PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

The law is very clear and makes no dispensation for a rape victim being further victimised at the hands of an abortionist. I happen to support this fully.

Fancy it up with whatever la de dah language makes ya feel good honest fact is you force them to have a rapists baby that was forcibly put into them.

And actually what if the rape victim using her own brain decides that she would actually be further victimised by having to give birth to the rapists child. Do you fully support increasing the victimisation suffered by the victim as it makes you happy?

Black Menorca · 17-06-2015 07:14PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Fancy it up with whatever la de dah language makes ya feel good honest fact is you force them to have a rapists baby that was forcibly put into them.

And actually what if the rape victim using her own brain decides that she would actually be further victimised by having to give birth to the rapists child. Do you fully support increasing the victimisation suffered by the victim as it makes you happy?

I force no one to do anything.

I'm expressing support and pride in a law that makes Ireland a shining example of defending human life, born and unborn.

conorh91 · 17-06-2015 07:17PM

volchitsa wrote: »

But other clinical decisions are not overridden by legal decisions.

They can be. There is no clinical decision which is immune to litigation or prosecution. Take medical negligence cases on their own: approx 25 of these are processed in the High Court every week, and rising.

The doctors' considered medical opinion was that the baby could not possibly survive.

No, there was some slight difference in the doctors respective prognoses. Dr Peter McKenna saw the prospect for the survival of the unborn as 'small'. He said that his view in that regard had hardened after hearing the testimony of Dr Colreavy. This indicates that Dr McKenna had previously believed there was some reasonable prospect for survival of the unborn, prior to the hearing.
Dr. Mortell, too, had downgraded his prognosis from earlier in the intervention, and this was also addressed during the hearing.

So the views of the clinicians didn't become uniform (or near-uniform) right until the hearing was underway.

That doesn't happen with other medical decisions

Yes it does. Other clinical decisions not involving the unborn, such as withholding medical treatment, have also been subject to important court decisions, such as in Re a Ward of Court.

People who desire a clinical environment that is divorced from legal oversight simply do not understand the consequences of what they are saying.

pmasterson95 · 17-06-2015 07:22PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

I force no one to do anything.

I'm expressing support and pride in a law that makes Ireland a shining example of defending human life, born and unborn.

I think you first response to me gave a clear sign as to how a discussion with you was to go.

Black Menorca · 17-06-2015 07:45PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

I think you first response to me gave a clear sign as to how a discussion with you was to go.

We all have our own styles.

oscarBravo · 17-06-2015 07:47PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

...honest fact is you force them to have a rapists baby that was forcibly put into them.

This is what really offends me about the "pro-life" stance: "So, you were raped. Sorry you had to suffer the trauma of someone refusing to respect your right to bodily integrity. Oh by the way, you're going to have an unwanted person growing inside you for the best part of a year, and you don't get a choice in the matter."

am946745 · 17-06-2015 07:52PM

volchitsa wrote: »

It wasn't about abortion, but it was directly caused by the 8th amendment.

An amendment which was supposed only to prevent women having abortions has now been shown to affect pregnant women in all sorts of negative ways.

The Eighth must go.

Strange how our Maternal Mortality rate is lower than the UK.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=2223

8th Amendment

Comments