8th Amendment

lazygal · 19-06-2015 10:42PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

Was it inconvenient for you?

No twas fierce convenient having my pregnancy terminated at 39 weeks and not dying. Any chance of information on which Marie Stopes clinics permit abortions on request at 34 weeks?

ProfessorPlum · 19-06-2015 10:48PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Yet as we have seen, when 30 Irish hospital consultants express an opinion in light of their expert training, it is rejected.

Prof. Patricia Casey is another accredited expert whose clinical views have been widely lambasted by lay commentators, despite the fact that experts of her own rank have not denied the accuracy of her observations on abortion and the lack of associated mental health benefits.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to provide a synopsis of the Miss C case. I mentioned it because I am aware of the background. Clearly, Miss C is the epitome of teenage, suicidal rape victims and who, because of the trauma they have suffered, are in absolutely no position to determine the best, most clinically-advisable course of action over the long term.

conorh91 wrote: »

Professor O'Dyer is an internationally recognized expert; i find it slightly disturbing that you seem to be insisting that his personal faith would cloud his clinical judgment.

What basis do you have for your claim?

Conor, the reason for the synopsis was not for your benefit, rather to inform the background to my opinion on the mater for other readers on the thread who might not be as familiar with the case. I thought it rather a better approach than just saying 'I'm not surprised Miss C has issues'. I appreciate that your standard of debate is more informed than others that we have to endure.

Regarding the issue of the pro-life doctors - and they are all pro-life, and towards the extremes, my opinion is that I would rather see the unbiased opinion of non aligned doctors - and I include here doctors who are neither vocally pro-life or pro-choice for that mater.
When I hear pro-life doctors, experts in their fields, come out with statements such as 'abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life', and explain away the abortions that are indeed necessary to save a woman's life as the 'unintentional death of the baby', or the 'early delivery of the baby where every effort is made to save the baby's life' (even if the 'early delivery' happens well before viability is reached) I find it dishonest and insulting. When they make up terms such as 'direct abortion' I find it dishonest and insulting. Their narrative is influenced by their pro-life stance, and while they might understand the nuances of that they are saying, the general public, who are informed by their opinions, may not. When many of these doctors are aligned with extreme hardline groups such as Iona and the Life Institute, I cannot believe that their opinions are not informed or influenced by their affiliation with such groups.
Put it this way. If I was pregnant and suicidal, I wouldn't be going to see Professor Casey, not mater how good a psychiatrist she was. And if I had an illness that meant it was imperative that I shouldn't become pregnant, I won't be rocking up to the Mater looking for a tubal ligation.

Black Menorca · 19-06-2015 10:54PM

lazygal wrote: »

No twas fierce convenient having my pregnancy terminated at 39 weeks and not dying. Any chance of information on which Marie Stopes clinics permit abortions on request at 34 weeks?

To my knowledge, they don't. Yet my hypothetical had the abortion lobby tied up in knots for 5 pages.

Delirium · 19-06-2015 10:55PM

conorh91 wrote: »

I don't wish to repeat spurious and personal accusations about an expert's clinical judgment.

Do you have a reason to believe that Prof O'Dywer's clinical judgment is compromised by his religion?

You're kidding, right? I link to a paper delivered at an event about medicine and Catholism Sponsored by the Pontifical Council for the Health Pastoral Care
ROME to show Prof O'Dwyer hold to Catholic & pro-life POV.

I don't know how you leapt to the conclusion Catholic/pro-life doctor = bad.

All I was showing was the tone of the event as I perceived it based on organisers and participants.

pmasterson95 · 19-06-2015 10:57PM

Black Menorca wrote: »

To my knowledge, they don't. Yet my hypothetical had the abortion lobby tied up in knots for 5 pages.

No you just repeated yourself for 5-6 pages and refused to acknowledge the repeated answers.....and seem to try and claim obliviousness as a win?

And you straight up refused to answer mine. How you possibly think this debate is going well for you is the best comedy in a while!

am946745 · 19-06-2015 10:57PM

lazygal wrote: »

No twas fierce convenient having my pregnancy terminated at 39 weeks and not dying. Any chance of information on which Marie Stopes clinics permit abortions on request at 34 weeks?

34 weeks like this -->>
http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/hospital-admits-abortion-at-34-weeks-1-1389175

lazygal · 19-06-2015 11:02PM

am946745 wrote: »

34 weeks like this -->>
http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/hospital-admits-abortion-at-34-weeks-1-1389175

There's no reference to Marie Stopes in that article.

conorh91 · 19-06-2015 11:04PM

SW wrote: »

You're kidding, right? I link to a paper delivered at an event about medicine and Catholism Sponsored by the Pontifical Council for the Health Pastoral Care

That paper demonstrates that Prof O'Dywer maintains Catholic beliefs.

I asked you an altogether different question, and given the importance of reputation in clinical practice, I suggest you try not to attack anyone's reputation as you have perhaps already attempted.

Do you have a reason to believe that Prof O'Dywer's clinical judgment is compromised by his religion?

inocybe · 19-06-2015 11:05PM

am946745 wrote: »

34 weeks like this -->>
http://www.scotsman.com/news/health/hospital-admits-abortion-at-34-weeks-1-1389175

that was a fatal foetal abnormality. 34 or 40 weeks gestation would make no difference, there was no chance for life.

lazygal · 19-06-2015 11:08PM

conorh91 wrote: »

That paper demonstrates that Prof O'Dywer maintains Catholic beliefs.

I asked you a more relevant question

Do you have a reason to believe that Prof O'Dywer's clinical judgment is compromised by his religion?

Put it this way, there's consultants I avoided during pregnancy and will avoid again because of their clinical judgment, some of which is linked to their views stated in public or to other women in consultation and reflects their religious beliefs. Anecdotes about certain consultants and their personal beliefs are regularly passed among women using maternity services in Ireland. I chose my consultant mainly because of their approach on intervention and willingness to act before a problem became a crisis.

conorh91 · 19-06-2015 11:26PM

lazygal wrote: »

Anecdotes about certain consultants and their personal beliefs are regularly passed among women using maternity services in Ireland.

I am sure that you are correct that pregnant women share their experiences amonst one another.

Similarly, i am sure that you will agree that expectant women will be inclined to research, via online searches, the names of their prospective consultants.

I am suggesting that what is happening here is really a character assassination, whereby pregnant women may be dissuaded from attending an accredited expert based on seemingly baseless imputations against his clinical judgment.

pmasterson95 · 19-06-2015 11:27PM

conorh91 wrote: »

That paper demonstrates that Prof O'Dywer maintains Catholic beliefs.

I asked you an altogether different question, and given the importance of reputation in clinical practice, I suggest you try not to attack anyone's reputation as you have perhaps already attempted.

Do you have a reason to believe that Prof O'Dywer's clinical judgment is compromised by his religion?

What reason is there to doubt Rhona? She dismissed as nothing. By some.

pmasterson95 · 19-06-2015 11:33PM

conorh91 wrote: »

I am sure that you are correct that pregnant women share their experiences amonst one another.

Similarly, i am sure that you will agree that expectant women will be inclined to research, via online searches, the names of their prospective consultants.

I am suggesting that what is happening here is really a character assassination, whereby pregnant women may be dissuaded from attending an accredited expert based on seemingly baseless imputations against his clinical judgment.

Menorca does the same about Rhona claiming her agenda leaves her hospital filthy. If its Doctors character you want to save you should really lecture Menorca about its speech. Or is.it ok to defame doctors of the opposing view?

lazygal · 19-06-2015 11:33PM

conorh91 wrote: »

I am sure that you are correct that pregnant women share their experiences amonst one another.

Similarly, i am sure that you will agree that expectant women will be inclined to research, via online searches, the names of their prospective consultants.

I am suggesting that what is happening here is really a character assassination, whereby pregnant women may be dissuaded from attending an accredited expert based on seemingly baseless imputations against his clinical judgment.

If I came across information that a particular consultant in a maternity hospital I attended had signed the Dublin declaration and or had been involved in something on how to be a good Catholic while providing maternity care you can bet your bottom dollar that doctor wouldn't be coming near me and I'd request that in my notes.

conorh91 · 19-06-2015 11:43PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

What reason is there to doubt Rhona? She dismissed as nothing. By some.

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Menorca does the same about Rhona

Look I don't know anybody named Rhona and I don't know the person to whom you're referring. Professionals should be addressed on professional terms, not personal terms. I have already criticized that poster in relation to his comments about the Master of the National Maternity Hospital, which I think are sexist, frankly.

lazygal wrote: »

you can bet your bottom dollar that doctor wouldn't be coming near me and I'd request that in my notes.

Are you implying that the Doctor in question is unfit to provide maternal services in keeping with the law, purely in light of his religious beliefs?

traprunner · 19-06-2015 11:47PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Are you implying that the Doctor in question is unfit to provide maternal services in keeping with the law, purely in light of his religious beliefs?

I get the impression by the way you seem to deliberately read too much into lazygals post that you would love if she was saying that.

johnnyskeleton · 19-06-2015 11:50PM

Mod: Two users banned for ignoring mod instruction to stop repeatedly accusing each other of not answering each others questions. This forum on a friday night are not the place for such clever back and forth

Atlantis50 · 20-06-2015 12:10AM

am946745 wrote: »

As specialists with significant experience in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology, we are shocked at the unwarranted and unfounded allegations made by Amnesty International in relation to obstetrical practice in Ireland.

In Amnesty’s report She is Not a Criminal, serious allegations are made against doctors working in Irish hospitals when it comes to the management of miscarriage and pregnancy loss. These allegations, which are not supported by factual evidence in the report, misrepresent the standard of practice in Ireland when it comes to the management of pregnancy loss.

The claim that women are forced to carry a “dead baby” inside them for months after miscarriage it is at best a gross misrepresentation, and at worst, a callous attempt to discredit and shame Irish obstetricians. The purpose seems to be to provoke a debate on the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, something that really has nothing to do with the management of miscarriage.

The standard of practice for the management of miscarriage is the same in Ireland as it is in any other developed nation, regardless of the law on abortion. Once foetal demise is confirmed via an ultrasound scan, there are three options available to the woman; a conservative “watch and wait” approach; medical management, which uses drugs to induce delivery; or surgical management in which the womb is surgically evacuated.

Amnesty’s report seems to suggest that women in Ireland are offered no help at the time of miscarriage and are left with dead foetuses inside of them because of some perceived legal restrictions. This is simply not true.

As soon as a miscarriage has been confirmed, a care plan is formulated between the patient and her doctor, and the best interests of the woman are always prioritised.

Occasionally, and as per national guidelines, a repeat scan will be indicated to confirm that foetal demise has indeed occurred. However, this is consistent with international best practice, and is not a reflection of the law of this country in relation to abortion. Doctors do not delay treatment other than when that is clinically indicated. If individual doctors have done so in the past, then that is a reflection on individual practice and not on standard practice in Ireland.

Amnesty would do well to look at international reports, which place Ireland high on the leader board in obstetrical care, particularly when it comes to our low rates of maternal death and low perinatal mortality.

Many doctors are supportive of Amnesty International but it is not appropriate for an international body concerned with the human rights of all people to make such broad and sweeping statements about the practice of obstetrics in Ireland when our statistics and guidelines on these matters speak for themselves. –

Is mise,

Prof JOHN BONNAR, Professor Emeritus Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Trinity College Dublin;

Dr PATRICK CONWAY, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Co Meath;

Dr TREVOR HAYES, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, St Luke’s General Hospital, Kilkenny;

Dr CHRIS KING, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Letterkenny General Hospital;

Dr SUBHASH KOHLI, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist, Co Kildare;

Dr DERMOT MacDONALD, Former Master of National Maternity Hospital, Dublin;

Dr EAMON McGUINNESS, Consultant Obstetrician Gynaecologist, and St James’s Hospital, Dublin;

Dr JOHN MONAGHAN,Dr KHAWAJA NAVEED ANJUM, Consultant Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Portiuncula Hospital, Co Galway.

An emphatic repudiation of Amnesty's ridiculously biased report.

Attempts to dismiss their expert opinion is laughable because the central focus of their letter (clinical management of miscarriage) is fully supported by HSE guidelines developed by the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland:

http://www.hse.ie/eng/about/Who/clinical/natclinprog/obsandgynaeprogramme/second%20trimester.pdf (Section 5.4)

Guess who is listed as a peer reviewer of this guidance? Rhona Mahony.

How could Rhona possibly stand over Amnesty's gross misrepresentations, and at worst, a callous attempt to discredit and shame Irish obstetricians?

She has seriously damaged her reputation by throwing her colleagues under the bus to shill for repeal of the 8th Amendment.

Godge · 20-06-2015 12:32AM

Black Menorca wrote: »

And beyond 22 weeks? Would you deny the woman her request?

A balance has to be struck. Is it at 22 weeks or 20 or 26, I don't know, I am not a medical expert.

However, a woman should have the right to terminate up to a certain stage.

oscarBravo · 20-06-2015 12:41AM

Godge wrote: »

A balance has to be struck. Is it at 22 weeks or 20 or 26, I don't know, I am not a medical expert.

However, a woman should have the right to terminate up to a certain stage.

Answering the question is an exercise in futility.

Black Menorca is using a tactic beloved of Creationists: asking a question to which there isn't a single, definitive answer, in order to be able to say "see? you idiots can't even agree among yourselves".

The premise is that being able to give a definitive answer to a question means you are right. There doesn't have to be any logic or reason - or compassion or empathy or respect for a woman's dignity - informing the answer; it just has to be delivered emphatically.

So, in the same way that Creationists will ask "what happened before the Big Bang?" and use the lack of a definite answer as "proof" that goddidit, Black Menorca will ask at what stage it's OK to terminate a pregnancy, and then get all snidely smug about the lack of a consensus response, taking this as proof that it's perfectly OK to force a teenager who has been raped by her father to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, because Baby.

I understand the temptation to respond, I truly do: but you're arguing with someone who believes that a small clump of cells has the same human rights as a grown woman, and that there are no grey areas in this debate.

Godge · 20-06-2015 12:42AM

Black Menorca wrote: »

You'd like to deflect on to other scenarios for sure. I don't blame you.

Partial birth abortions. you know the ones. Where the baby's body is delivered apart from the head and the brain is suctioned out and the skull collapses.

2,000 such procedures happen in America each year.

Do you believe denying such a procedure is disrespecting the woman's wishes?

You are throwing up a lot of red herrings.

I have said many times on these threads (not just in relation to abortion) that where rights clash, a balance has to be found.

That means, in this case, abortions for any normal reason up until a time limit.

The only discussion we need is when that limit should be. I suggest 22 weeks, what do you suggest?

ProfessorPlum · 20-06-2015 12:43AM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

An emphatic repudiation of Amnesty's ridiculously biased report.

Attempts to dismiss their expert opinion is laughable because the central focus of their letter (clinical management of miscarriage) is fully supported by HSE guidelines developed by the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland:

http://www.hse.ie/eng/about/Who/clinical/natclinprog/obsandgynaeprogramme/second%20trimester.pdf (Section 5.4)

Guess who is listed as a peer reviewer of this guidance? Rhona Mahony.

How could Rhona possibly stand over Amnesty's gross misrepresentations, and at worst, a callous attempt to discredit and shame Irish obstetricians?

She has seriously damaged her reputation by throwing her colleagues under the bus to shill for repeal of the 8th Amendment.

It seems that quite a few people on this thread are personally acquainted with Dr Mahony. Either that or quite a few people have no respect for a woman who has given most of her adult life, and made huge personal sacrifices to concentrate on giving the best possible care to pregnant women and their babies in this country.
Shame on you to misrepresent her here.

As you rightly point out, the letter to the newspaper was concerned with the management of miscarraige, and as you rightly point out, the views expressed are in line with clinical guidelines.

But none of that has anything to do with abortion or the 8th amendment.
Dr Mahony's difficulty with the law in Ireland as it currently stands, is to do with the balancing of the rights of the pregnant woman and her child.
Is it so difficult to believe that a doctor that has dedicated her professional life to the care of pregnant women might feel that she should not be faced with a 14 year prison term when she is dealing with conflicting rights of woman and pre viable foetus, and she errs on the side of the woman?
Is it any wonder that she might value the long term health of the woman? Or indeed feel that the health of the baby and it's quality of life - perhaps short and painful, might inform a woman's decision to request a termination?

Dr Mahony has been nothing but honest in her representations. The use of the term 'shill' is disingenuous and insulting.

ProfessorPlum · 20-06-2015 01:00AM

conorh91 wrote: »

Who was the organizer?

I thought it was the Committee for Excellence in Maternal Healthcare; the website says it is composed of "physicians and other practitioners". I assume that's why the Royal College of Physicians awarded it 6 CME points.

Can you please explain what you mean when you accuse the medical experts of "aligning" with conservative christian groups, which implies that they are basing their clinical judgments on religion.

Because that seems like a serious accusation to make and undermines the reputation of these impartially-accredited experts.

The Committee for Excellence in Maternal Healthcare is a pro life group.

I actually went to the bother of watching a few of the presentations. There was a lot of good medicine there - hence the reason for the CME points awarded by the RCPI.

But when Professor O'Dwyer, in his opening of the conference states that there is never a need for abortion to save the life of the mother, I am on my guard. Because I know that is not true.

conorh91 · 20-06-2015 01:12AM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

The Committee for Excellence in Maternal Healthcare is a pro life group.

[Citation needed]

Certainly the outcome of the deliberations have suggested that abortion is of questionable clinical value. That is a clinical determination, of course.

Of course, one can reject medical arguments concerning abortion, and still be pro-choice from a wider ethical perspective, or at least, open-minded.

So, on what basis do you accuse Prof. O'Dwyer and his peers of having a prejudiced opinion?

ProfessorPlum · 20-06-2015 01:18AM

Here's an interesting piece that Prof O'Dwyer penned. I think it sets out his philosophy fairly well.

http://www.fiamc.org/fiamc/03events/0209seoul/texts3/01odwyer/odwyer.htm

On the Supreme Court decision to uphold the constitutional right to privacy in marital relations, including the right to use contraceptives:

"This decision of the Supreme Court opened the flood gates, as it were, to the widespread use of the contraceptive pill in Ireland. I stated earlier that Ireland was a Catholic country, with 94 per cent of the population in a recent census describing themselves as Roman Catholic. Unfortunately, we appear to lack the fortitude which enabled our ancestors steadfastly to remain Catholic in word and deed"

On the X case - were a 14 year old child was raped:

"Unfortunately, not so --- Nine years later, a girl of 14, pregnant after consensual intercourse with a grown man"

On abortion to save the life of the mother:

"However, if the truth be told there are no medical indications for abortion in a properly managed pregnancy"

On sex education:

"Yet all is not well. Sex education in our schools concentrates on so-called "safe sex" to the exclusion, almost, of chastity and responsibility."

On abortion in Ireland (this one is a bit confusing):

""While, for the present, abortions are not being carried out in Ireland there is, at the same time, one induced abortion for every eight births

On the fear we might legislate for abortion, even to save the life of the mother:

"At the same time, there is some evidence that the current Medical Council is not as pro-life as its predecessors. Last year the Council voted by 12 votes to 7 in favour of abortion where there was a congenital malformation such as spina bifida or where continuation of the pregnancy posed a risk to the mother's life and we are awaiting the publication, later this year, of its new Ethical Guidelines with some concern"

On the demise of Ireland in general:

"As you see, in many ways, Ireland needs help! Perhaps we require another St. Patrick to reconvert us to proper Christian values?"

No, I wouldn't fancy Professor O'Dwyer as my obstetrician. Luckily he is retired many, many years ago.

ProfessorPlum · 20-06-2015 01:21AM

conorh91 wrote: »

[Citation needed]

Well, look at it this way. The committee was set up to hold one conference, with the sole purpose of producing the 'Dublin Declaration'.
Since then they have dropped off the face of the planet. If it were truly a committee devoted to excellence in maternal healthcare, I would expect to see them continuing to be active, unless they feel that all their objectives - the establishment of excellent maternal healthcare presumably - have been achieved.

conorh91 wrote: »

Certainly the outcome of the deliberations have suggested that abortion is of questionable clinical value.

No, no it hasn't. It's semantics, that's all.

conorh91 wrote: »

Of course, one can reject medical arguments concerning abortion, and still be pro-choice from a wider ethical perspective, or at least, open-minded.

So, on what basis do you accuse Prof. O'Dwyer and his peers of having a prejudiced opinion?

On the basis that is is factually wrong to maintain that there is never an indication for an abortion to save the life of a pregnant woman.

Any immediate life threatening complication in a pregnant woman requiring delivery of a pre viable foetus is an abortion. It's dishonest semantics to say otherwise.

Atlantis50 · 20-06-2015 09:21AM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

It seems that quite a few people on this thread are personally acquainted with Dr Mahony. Either that or quite a few people have no respect for a woman who has given most of her adult life, and made huge personal sacrifices to concentrate on giving the best possible care to pregnant women and their babies in this country.
Shame on you to misrepresent her here.

She risks undermining all of her good work by putting her reputation - and that of the National Maternity Hospital - on the line to push for repeal of the 8th Amendment by any means necessary, including publically supporting a biased report ("She is not a criminal") that falsely claims that women are forced to carry a "dead baby" inside them for months after miscarriage because of the 8th Amendment.

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

As you rightly point out, the letter to the newspaper was concerned with the management of miscarraige, and as you rightly point out, the views expressed are in line with clinical guidelines.

But none of that has anything to do with abortion or the 8th amendment.

I fully agree.

So do you also agree with the obstetricians quoted who claim that the "She is not a Criminal" Amnesty report includes gross misrepresentations, and at worst, a callous attempt to discredit and shame Irish obstetricians?

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

Dr Mahony's difficulty with the law in Ireland as it currently stands, is to do with the balancing of the rights of the pregnant woman and her child.
Is it so difficult to believe that a doctor that has dedicated her professional life to the care of pregnant women might feel that she should not be faced with a 14 year prison term when she is dealing with conflicting rights of woman and pre viable foetus, and she errs on the side of the woman?
Is it any wonder that she might value the long term health of the woman? Or indeed feel that the health of the baby and it's quality of life - perhaps short and painful, might inform a woman's decision to request a termination?

Dr Mahony has been nothing but honest in her representations. The use of the term 'shill' is disingenuous and insulting.

The real question is why she is willing to publically support and promote a report that throws her colleagues under the bus by backing a report that includes gross misrepresentations, and at worst, a callous attempt to discredit and shame Irish obstetricians.

lazygal · 20-06-2015 09:32AM

I've been treated by Dr. mahony. I'd rather her treat me than any doctors who claim abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life and that the eighth amendment is somehow A Good Thing For Women. I'm.glad the doctors to.avoid have made themselves known so women can decide if they want to be treated by them.

krankykitty · 20-06-2015 10:37AM

I was at the launch of the report and listened to Dr Mahony speak very passionately about the dilemmas obstetricians are in. How they have to wait until there is a risk to life, but it is unclear what level of risk to life is acceptable, ie is it 10%, 50%, 90% risk of dying before they can provide treatment within the scope of the law. Also that risk isnt an exact science so peoples condition can deteriorate very quickly. She was very clear that this is unsafe and that it makes the doctors job extremely hard. They should only be concentrating on the health of their patient not having to consult legals and worry that their actions to save the patients life might carry a conviction.

She also spoke about how it felt wrong to be taking the choices about treatment path away from the woman. Nobody's consulting her about what level of risk to her life is acceptable to her

krankykitty · 20-06-2015 10:42AM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

She risks undermining all of her good work by putting her reputation - and that of the National Maternity Hospital - on the line to push for repeal of the 8th Amendment by any means necessary, including publically supporting a biased report ("She is not a criminal") that falsely claims that women are forced to carry a "dead baby" inside them for months after miscarriage because of the 8th Amendment.

I fully agree.

So do you also agree with the obstetricians quoted who claim that the "She is not a Criminal" Amnesty report includes gross misrepresentations, and at worst, a callous attempt to discredit and shame Irish obstetricians?

The real question is why she is willing to publically support and promote a report that throws her colleagues under the bus by backing a report that includes gross misrepresentations, and at worst, a callous attempt to discredit and shame Irish obstetricians.

These issues have a direct affect on her work and the care she can deliver to the women in her hospitals care. Why wouldn't she get involved? Or would some posters prefer if she was cleaning the hospital like a good little woman

8th Amendment

Comments