8th Amendment

galljga1 · 20-06-2015 10:57AM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

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.

So, no obvious prejudiced opinion.

ProfessorPlum · 20-06-2015 11:12AM

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.

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.

The Amnesty report is 113 pages long.

If the only issues that Prof Bonnar (another retired and extreme pro life former practioner) can find with the report are two and a half pages dealing with real life situations encountered by real life patients suffering early pregnancy loss, which they feel to be irrelevant, then I think it is a stark reflection on the relevance of the rest of the report.

The fact of the mater is that in the 2 cases used to highlight a situation (one historical, one more contemporary -'Lupe's story', occurring just a few months after the death of Savita Halappanavar's death, and in the same hospital) the women involved were forced to carry their dead foetuses. In Lupe's case, the advise she was given - that there was nothing they could do despite the overwhelming evidence of misscarriage - was given to her by three different doctors. Was this 3 doctors in the same hospital on the same day who just got it wrong, or was their opinion formed by an extreme pro life view, of by fear of consequences if they were mistaken in their diagnosis? (Of course the only relevance of the 8th to the situation is in the diagnosis of pregnancy loss - and it was against the background of the Halappanavar case).

The report isn't discrediting or shaming Irish obstetricians, and nobody is 'throwing their colleagues under a bus'. It is simply outlining the difficulties encountered in obstetric practice here in the shadow of the 8th ammendment.

ProfessorPlum · 20-06-2015 11:15AM

galljga1 wrote: »

So, no obvious prejudiced opinion.

I think it's very necessary that you edit your post to add the 'sarcastic' icon. Or several. I'm sure there are some on here that would literally agree with your post!

Loafing Oaf · 20-06-2015 02:40PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

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.

Well this is the primary purpose of denying there are ever medically necessary abortions isn't it, to whip up hysteria about abortion among ignorant people. But if the pro-lifers had a bit more savvy they would see that this approach has become counter-productive: when young people forming their opinions about abortion see that the pro-lifers are basing case on a premise they know to be bs - that 'abortion is never necessary to save a woman's life' - they are likely to dismiss everything else they say as bs as well...

conorh91 · 20-06-2015 02:51PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

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

It's hard to overstate what stupid reasoning this is. I have attended plenty of once-off symposiums, there's nothing unusual about such events, especially in Ireland. The Committee organised a medical symposium which was accredited by the Royal College of Physicians in Ireland, not a pro-life event. It may simply be that the scientific evidence suggests something with which you disagree on ethical grounds, or by deliberately misinterpreting the Dublin declaration.

I'll ask you again. What proof do you have that the Committee was pro-life?

Do you even have a list of the committee members? At least tell us that much.

conorh91 · 20-06-2015 02:55PM

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Well this is the primary purpose of denying there are ever medically necessary abortions isn't it, to whip up hysteria about abortion among ignorant people

Except they are distinguishing between medical interventions whose primary purpose is to save the mother's life, and medical interventions whose primary purpose is to kill the unborn, which is an abortion.

They have no problem, apparently, in intervening to save a mother's life, even if the unborn will die - as an example, they mention ectopic pregnancies.

But you know this. Your primary purpose in pretending otherwise is to whip up hysteria among ignorant people.

ProfessorPlum · 20-06-2015 03:43PM

conorh91 wrote: »

It's hard to overstate what stupid reasoning this is. I have attended plenty of once-off symposiums, there's nothing unusual about such events, especially in Ireland. The Committee organised a medical symposium which was accredited by the Royal College of Physicians in Ireland, not a pro-life event. It may simply be that the scientific evidence suggests something with which you disagree on ethical grounds, or by deliberately misinterpreting the Dublin declaration.

I'll ask you again. What proof do you have that the Committee was pro-life?

Do you even have a list of the committee members? At least tell us that much.

Professor O'Dwyer was medical advisor to the pro life campaign.
Their spokesperson is Dr Eoghan de Faoite of Youth Defence.
Everyone of their main speakers is vocally pro life.

There is no listing of committee members on their site. No biographies. Dr de Faoite is keen to tell us they are in no way linked to the pro life movement.
It's all a bit convenient.
It's also widely acknowledged in the (non aligned) wider medical community to be a 'one trick pony'. The trick is the Dublin declaration.

One of the presentations I listened to last night was Dr Monique V. Chireau. She made an interesting presentation on pre eclampsia, and it's management. She was eager to point out that pre eclamptic women can deteriorate rapidly, within hours, and that they should be delivered without delay at the first signs of compromise. Yet a few minutes later she suggested that in a pregnancy of 25 weeks, there should be delay to optimise the foetus

She also didn't mention once the management of pre eclampsia or HELLP in pregnancies that had not reached gestational viability. Now that's convenient.

I'm amused that you think I might be misinterpreting the Dublin Declaration. It's fairly clear: Abortion is never necessary to save the life of the mother.
But it is!
They justified such 'non abortion' abortions by calling them something other than abortion. But that's what they are. Legally and medically.

For example, if a woman at say 20 week gestation presents with HELLP syndrome, the only remedy is to terminate the pregnancy. The foetus will die. They call that 'early delivery' or 'treatment necessary to save the life of the mother while every effort is made to save the life of the baby' (I'd love someone to expand on what exactly these 'efforts' are relating to a 20 week old foetus. Everybody else - including the lawyers, calls it abortion.

I don't know what else I can say to you Conor. You seem to be stuck in semantics, and are sadly a victim of the dishonesty of the 'committee'.

Loafing Oaf · 20-06-2015 03:50PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Except they are distinguishing between medical interventions whose primary purpose is to save the mother's life, and medical interventions whose primary purpose is to kill the unborn, which is an abortion.

Which is a spurious distinction, as ProfessorPlum explains below. And what exactly do you mean when you say the primary purpose of nonmedical abortion is 'to kill the unborn'? Are you suggesting that women who have such abortions are motivated by a love of killing for its own sake?

conorh91 · 20-06-2015 04:25PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

There is no listing of committee members on their site. No biographies.

So you are trying to claim that the committee members are pro-life, without having any idea who they are. Wonderful.

They justified such 'non abortion' abortions by calling them something other than abortion. But that's what they are. Legally and medically.

Abortion is not defined anywhere in Irish law. Abortion is not even mentioned in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. The only reference to abortion in law in modern times is in animal medicines regulations.

Secondly, abortion is defined in medicine as the premature expulsion of the foetus, foetal membranes, and placenta not resulting in a live baby. The medical definition of abortion includes what we colloquially call miscarriage.

We colloquially refer to deliberate terminations as abortions instead, although this is not coterminous with the medical definition.

So I'm afraid you're wrong to suggest that the Dublin declaration is erroneous in its terminology, unless you want to argue that you yourself are using erroneous terminology.

The signatories of the declaration are very clear: they will intervene to save a mother's life where necessary, even if it results in the death of the unborn. However, there is no medical reason why taking the life of the unborn would be a primary objective. This they refer to as direct abortion.

You might disagree with them, but they make up a large bulk of our most senior medical experts in their field, in this country.

ProfessorPlum · 20-06-2015 05:27PM

conorh91 wrote: »

So you are trying to claim that the committee members are pro-life, without having any idea who they are. Wonderful.

Abortion is not defined anywhere in Irish law. Abortion is not even mentioned in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. The only reference to abortion in law in modern times is in animal medicines regulations.

Secondly, abortion is defined in medicine as the premature expulsion of the foetus, foetal membranes, and placenta not resulting in a live baby. The medical definition of abortion includes what we colloquially call miscarriage.

We colloquially refer to deliberate terminations as abortions instead, although this is not coterminous with the medical definition.

So I'm afraid you're wrong to suggest that the Dublin declaration is erroneous in its terminology, unless you want to argue that you yourself are using erroneous terminology.

The signatories of the declaration are very clear: they will intervene to save a mother's life where necessary, even if it results in the death of the unborn. However, there is no medical reason why taking the life of the unborn would be a primary objective. This they refer to as direct abortion.

You might disagree with them, but they make up a large bulk of our most senior medical experts in their field, in this country.

No, abortion is not mentioned in the law. The POLDP act refers to 'destruction of the unborn' and a 'medical procedure during which an unborn life is ended'. The previous applicable law - the Offences against the person act referred to 'procuring a misscarraige'. Does this mean abortion does not exist??

What we colloquially call miscarriage is more correctly medically defined as spontaneous abortion.

The signatories of the declaration have used a non medical term 'direct abortion'. This term originates, as far as I can see in church doctrine. It is not a medical term. Does it not strike you as unusual that the conclusions of a 'medical' conference are phrased not in medical, but in theological terms?

What are the practicalities of the distinction?
When one of these doctors delivers a 17 week old foetus to save the life of the mother, does this not fall under the act? Because the act refers to the fact that it is an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life? Do they not then have to report this to the HSE?
Of course they do. It's just semantics. I'm surprised that you have been fooled by it.

And no, they do not make up a 'large bulk of our most senior medical experts'. As I said, statistics may not be one of your strong points either.

conorh91 · 20-06-2015 05:45PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

No, abortion is not mentioned in the law. The POLDP act refers to 'destruction of the unborn' and a 'medical procedure during which an unborn life is ended'. The previous applicable law - the Offences against the person act referred to 'procuring a misscarraige'. Does this mean abortion does not exist??

I have no idea why you feel the need for this irrelevant spiel. I know abortion is not defined in Irish law because I am the one who raised that very point in response to your claim that the Dublin declaration employs a legally erroneous understanding of the word 'abortion'.

What we colloquially call miscarriage is more correctly medically defined as spontaneous abortion.

Again, I'm the one who raised this. You're not answering the question.

You trying to criticize the doctors for not employing the correct term "legally and medically", when there is no correct legal term, and the medical term is misused on this very thread, including by yourself.

The experts are using the term 'purposeful abortion', or 'direct abortion', which in fact corresponds quite nicely with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, whereby in s.22 of that Act, the law is "it shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life"

And no, they do not make up a 'large bulk of our most senior medical experts'. As I said, statistics may not be one of your strong points either.

Read better. I said they make up a large bulk of our most senior medical experts in their field, in this country.

They do. You may not like the fact that these experts' professional opinion s don't accord with your own, but they are the experts here.

ProfessorPlum · 20-06-2015 06:24PM

conorh91 wrote: »

I have no idea why you feel the need for this irrelevant spiel. I know abortion is not defined in Irish law because I am the one who raised that very point in response to your claim that the Dublin declaration employs a legally erroneous understanding of the word 'abortion'.

Again, I'm the one who raised this. You're not answering the question.

You trying to criticize the doctors for not employing the correct term "legally and medically", when there is no correct legal term, and the medical term is misused on this very thread, including by yourself.

I'm introducing you to the term spontaneous abortion which you seemed to have missed when googling.
Medics will specifically use the term spontaneous abortion when referring to miscarriage, if they don't refer to it as miscarriage, that is. So I don't believe I've misused the term, certainly not with the intention of misleading people, as the Dublin Declaration crowd have. I'm criticising them for using a theological term and pretending it's a medical one.

conorh91 wrote: »

The experts are using the term 'purposeful abortion', or 'direct abortion', which in fact corresponds quite nicely with the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013, whereby in s.22 of that Act, the law is "it shall be an offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life"

So if their intention is not to destroy unborn human life - i.e. any abortion they might carry out, then it doesn't fall under the act? Well that's a relief.

That's good news infact for anyone who wants to not be pregnant. If the pregnancy is terminated but the intention was to cure the hyperemesis gravidarum, that's ok then? It's not illegal?

conorh91 wrote: »

Read better. I said they make up a large bulk of our most senior medical experts in their field, in this country.

They do. You may not like the fact that these experts' professional opinion s don't accord with your own, but they are the experts here.

Do your maths better- if you're going to include the retired names, then you'd better benchmark them against all retired clinicians. You can't pick and choose who to include when working out the percentages.
You might care to illustrate how they make up a large bulk.

am946745 · 21-06-2015 03:03AM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I'm introducing you to the term spontaneous abortion which you seemed to have missed when googling.
Medics will specifically use the term spontaneous abortion when referring to miscarriage, if they don't refer to it as miscarriage, that is. So I don't believe I've misused the term, certainly not with the intention of misleading people, as the Dublin Declaration crowd have. I'm criticising them for using a theological term and pretending it's a medical one.

Why are you bring miscarriage into an abortion debate?

volchitsa · 21-06-2015 05:53AM

am946745 wrote: »

Why are you bring miscarriage into an abortion debate?

Read the thread title. The 8th amendment doesn't mention abortions, which is why it doesn't only affect women seeking abortions for social reasons.

lazygal · 21-06-2015 07:31AM

am946745 wrote: »

Why are you bring miscarriage into an abortion debate?

If the unborn have the right to life from implantation why don't they receive medical treatment from implantation? Why is no treatment whatsoever available to women presenting with early miscarriage?

Atlantis50 · 21-06-2015 09:17AM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

The Amnesty report is 113 pages long.

If the only issues that Prof Bonnar (another retired and extreme pro life former practioner) can find with the report are two and a half pages dealing with real life situations encountered by real life patients suffering early pregnancy loss, which they feel to be irrelevant, then I think it is a stark reflection on the relevance of the rest of the report.

There's only so much that they can fit in a letter to the Irish Times and the case of "Lupe's" miscarriage was the most blatant misrepresentation and they were right to focus on that.

There's much more wrong with the report that I have referred to earlier in this thread last week.

And they haven't said that the case of "Lupe" is irrelevant at all - they've said that the situation presented is a gross misrepresentation of the treatment of miscarriage.

Why are you only referring to Prof Bonnar? Was he the only one who signed off on the letter lambasting Amesty's report? :rolleyes:

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

The fact of the mater is that in the 2 cases used to highlight a situation (one historical, one more contemporary -'Lupe's story', occurring just a few months after the death of Savita Halappanavar's death, and in the same hospital) the women involved were forced to carry their dead foetuses. In Lupe's case, the advise she was given - that there was nothing they could do despite the overwhelming evidence of misscarriage - was given to her by three different doctors. Was this 3 doctors in the same hospital on the same day who just got it wrong, or was their opinion formed by an extreme pro life view, of by fear of consequences if they were mistaken in their diagnosis? (Of course the only relevance of the 8th to the situation is in the diagnosis of pregnancy loss - and it was against the background of the Halappanavar case).

You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

In post #1493, you wrote that:

"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."

Instead of coming up with contorted logic about "extreme pro-life doctors" and blaming the 8th Amendment, why not simply accept that the Amnesty report is wrong?

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

The report isn't discrediting or shaming Irish obstetricians, and nobody is 'throwing their colleagues under a bus'. It is simply outlining the difficulties encountered in obstetric practice here in the shadow of the 8th ammendment.

Eight specialists with significant experience in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology disagree. Their views carry much more weight than your spin.

Atlantis50 · 21-06-2015 09:22AM

lazygal wrote: »

If the unborn have the right to life from implantation why don't they receive medical treatment from implantation? Why is no treatment whatsoever available to women presenting with early miscarriage?

You see, this is exactly why the specialists with significant experience in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology were right to detail how Amnesty's report misrepresents the standard of practice in Ireland when it comes to the management of pregnancy loss.

Lazygal, please read sections 5.4 to 5.6 of this report which clearly outlines the treatment options for early miscarriage:

http://www.hse.ie/eng/about/Who/clinical/natclinprog/obsandgynaeprogramme/guide9.pdf

ProfessorPlum · 21-06-2015 12:37PM

am946745 wrote: »

Why are you bring miscarriage into an abortion debate?

Right. Because I was the first to mention miscarriage? Really. Do you read at all?

Atlantis50 wrote: »

There's only so much that they can fit in a letter to the Irish Times and the case of "Lupe's" miscarriage was the most blatant misrepresentation and they were right to focus on that.

Well that's kind of my point. If I have only a couple of hundred words to get my point across, I would pick the most relevant point. If this is it, that says quite a lot.

Atlantis50 wrote: »

There's much more wrong with the report that I have referred to earlier in this thread last week.

What are the points you referred to? They're not immediately obvious.

Atlantis50 wrote: »

And they haven't said that the case of "Lupe" is irrelevant at all

Ok, if you say so, but this is what the actual letter said:

"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."

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Why are you only referring to Prof Bonnar? Was he the only one who signed off on the letter lambasting Amesty's report? :rolleyes:

Yes, you're right. I'd intended to write 'Prof Bonnar et al', but I was on my phone and it slipped by. You can take it that I meant to include the full list.

Atlantis50 wrote: »

You seem to be trying to have it both ways.

In post #1493, you wrote that:

"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."

Instead of coming up with contorted logic about "extreme pro-life doctors" and blaming the 8th Amendment, why not simply accept that the Amnesty report is wrong?

Care to point out any logic about 'extreme pro life doctors'? Did you not notice the question mark - a well known point of punctuation that implies uncertainty. I was merely exploring the reasons why 3 qualified doctors working in the same hospital on the same day would choose to manage a case in a way that falls far short of the guidelines.

The Amnesty report is not wrong. Unless you believe the women are liars? I don't. I believe these cases happened. I might be useful for the HSE to look into certainly the more recent case to examine exactly the 'whats' and the 'whys'.

Why do you think I 'want to have it both ways'?
The 8th amendment has nothing to do with the management of miscarriage. There is no unborn life. Where it may be relevant is in the diagnosis of miscarriage, as I said.

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Eight specialists with significant experience in the field of obstetrics and gynaecology disagree. Their views carry much more weight than your spin.

I'm not 'spinning' anything. I'm telling it how I see it, and incidentally many more specialists agree with me.

PopePalpatine · 21-06-2015 02:08PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

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?"

Why am I being reminded of Russian fascists who never shut up about "Orthodox values"?

Black Menorca · 21-06-2015 04:25PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Why am I being reminded of Russian fascists who never shut up about "Orthodox values"?

I wonder why it reminds you of that as well.

conorh91 · 21-06-2015 06:44PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I'm introducing you to the term spontaneous abortion

No you're not. I'm very familiar with the terms abortion and spontaneous abortion, and i'm telling you now that if you're accusing the signatories to the Dublin Declaration of misusing the term, then you too are guilty of misusing the term in this thread.

The terms abortion and spontaneous abortion occur throughout medical literature, but as synonyms of one another. In medical terminology, abortion does not necessarily refer to a termination by way of a medical procedure. In using the term in that way, you are guilty of what you wrongly accuse the signatories of the Dublin Declaration of being guilty of.

I say the accusation is wrong because the signatories refer to a 'direct abortion', simply because they wish to distinguish between medical interventions to save women's lives, and procedures whose primary objective is the destruction of unborn life, which of course is an offence in Ireland.

They are merely reflecting the current legal position in this country.

Do your maths better- if you're going to include the retired names, then you'd better benchmark them against all retired clinicians

Not at all. You need to understand better.

I am saying that 30 experts that were accredited as such in Ireland is a large bulk of the experts in their field. "A large bulk", I want to tell you clearly, is not a mathematically prescribed unit. It simply reflects that, for a country of this size, the number is substantial.

Also substantial, is the point that no significant number of similarly expert clinicians in Ireland have contradicted these 30 experts.

volchitsa · 21-06-2015 10:06PM

So nobody who has dismissed the Amnesty report has anything specific to say about Dr Rhona Mahony's concrete examples where the law actually prevents doctors from doing their job in the safest possible way for the woman?

http://www.todayfm.com/player/podcasts/The_Anton_Savage_Show/The_Anton_Savage_Show/35083/2/Dr._Rhona_Mahony

So for example (from 3min40 to 7min20) a woman with ruptured membranes in the 2nd trimester : even if she doesn't have an infection upon admission, the most frequent result is that the baby suffers from the absence of fluid and its lungs don't develop. So that even if the woman doesn't develop a life-threatening infection (and there's about a 25-30% chance she will) the baby will survive and grow until term - except for its lungs. It is born and then suffocates to death.

In Ireland the law only allows doctors to intervene in that case, even knowing the baby has no future anyway, once the woman has developed a life-threatening infection. And as Dr Mahony said, no red lights start flashing at that point. It isn't necessarily easy to identify that illness as dangerous before it gets out of control.

AFAICT, none of the people, whether posters or doctors, who complained about the Amnesty report had anything to say about this. Is there any reason not to believe Dr Mahony that Irish law creates a potentially dangerous situation for women?

ProfessorPlum · 21-06-2015 10:13PM

conorh91 wrote: »

No you're not. I'm very familiar with the terms abortion and spontaneous abortion, and i'm telling you now that if you're accusing the signatories to the Dublin Declaration of misusing the term, then you too are guilty of misusing the term in this thread.

The terms abortion and spontaneous abortion occur throughout medical literature, but as synonyms of one another. In medical terminology, abortion does not necessarily refer to a termination by way of a medical procedure. In using the term in that way, you are guilty of what you wrongly accuse the signatories of the Dublin Declaration of being guilty of.

I say the accusation is wrong because the signatories refer to a 'direct abortion', simply because they wish to distinguish between medical interventions to save women's lives, and procedures whose primary objective is the destruction of unborn life, which of course is an offence in Ireland.

They are merely reflecting the current legal position in this country.

Not at all. You need to understand better.

I am saying that 30 experts that were accredited as such in Ireland is a large bulk of the experts in their field. "A large bulk", I want to tell you clearly, is not a mathematically prescribed unit. It simply reflects that, for a country of this size, the number is substantial.

Also substantial, is the point that no significant number of similarly expert clinicians in Ireland have contradicted these 30 experts.

Conor, I'm telling you now that underlining stuff does not make it any more true!
I'm really not so convinced that you are terribly familiar with medical terminology at all. I have never, in all my years heard a medical practitioner refer to a spontaneous abortion as anything other than a spontaneous abortion, a miscarriage or a a sub division of spontaneous abortion - inevitable abortion, missed abortion etc. In the later cases it is clear that it does not refer, nor is it synonymous with therapeutic abortion.

As I have said, many times, my great difficulty with the Dublin Declaration is the use of the theological term - which has no place in medical literature, practice or teaching - 'direct abortion'. I find it dishonest, as it is misleading to non medics like yourself who may not fully understand the implications of the term.

As for 'the large bulk' argument, as there is no mathematically prescribed unit, perhaps you think that one or two might compromise 'a large bulk'? Or must it be thirty? And what is the total population that this bulk is part of? Really, you are being rather vague here in your assertion that the 'large bulk' you talk about is indeed significant.

After taking a brief look down the list of the signatories - in the Obstetricians / Gynaecologists list, I'm finding it difficult to pick out the 30 you maintain are there. Infact many of the names listed are not accredited in Ireland, as you maintain, and many are not even qualified as Obstetricians. I recognise a few of the names as practicing GP's in fact. On the Obstetricians list. I wonder what other errors the list comprises. Noteworthy in their absence are any of the current masters of our Maternity hospitals, and a dearth of Obstetricians practicing in our major maternity hospitals (and yes, I do give those hospital more sway given the often poor quality of care delivered in many of our regional units - the Coombe, after all is currently over seeing work at Portlaoise due to it's poor standards). The only Professor on the list is Michael Foley, and to be fair, although he is a rather gruff individual, he is well regarded and an excellent teacher. I was quite saddened to see his name there.

So, lots of unqualified and unregistered practioners on the list, and a notable absence of the 'big guns'. Yes indeed. A Large Bulk.

As to the opposing side. Well, I suppose there's Doctors for Choice, they seem to be a large enough group, although its difficult to find a list of members. I wonder could that be anything to do with the reality in Ireland of how career limiting a move coming out in favour of anything that could even hint at being pro choice, given that many of our hospitals have a Catholic ethos. I believe there's a bill going through the Houses at the moment that will at least make such discrimination no longer legal, as sadly it is now.
It might be a huge leap to suggest, but I imagine that as the launch of 'She is not a Criminal' took place at the Rotunda, the Master (at least) Dr Coulter Smith may well have been in favour.
The other reason could be of course, as one eminent obstetrician said to me recently, is the fallout and 'lynching' that one might expect from the baying pro life mob - and we see the kind of commentary on threads like this one.

conorh91 · 21-06-2015 10:20PM

volchitsa wrote: »

AFAICT, none of the people, whether posters or doctors, who complained about the Amnesty report had anything to say about this. Is there any reason not to believe Dr Mahony that Irish law creates a potentially dangerous situation for women?

If there is a real and substantial threat to the life of the mother, then s.7 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 will be engaged, and the clinicians will be entitled to terminate the pregnancy, if it is in accordance with their judgment.

The immense irony here is that it was Dr Mahony herself, in her submission to the Joint Oireachtas Health Committee, who requested "clinical flexibility" and asked the Oireachtas to omit to enshrine a descriptive text (viz. 'on the balance of probabilities) in their Bill.

The Master of the NMH has got what she requested. That is why the Oireachtas did not legislate to demand the stricter, descriptive test, as suggested by the Supreme Court in the X case.

The omission to lay down the test, as requested, actually provides major flexibility to doctors, and was a major concession.

The problem here is a chronic lack of understanding of the Act, including perhaps by the Master of the NMH, who has not even understood her own request after it was granted.

volchitsa · 21-06-2015 10:25PM

conorh91 wrote: »

If there is a real and substantial threat to the life of the mother, then s.7 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 will be engaged, and the clinicians will be entitled to terminate the pregnancy, if it is in accordance with their judgment.

The immense irony here is that it was Dr Mahony herself, in her submission to the Joint Oireachtas Health Committee, who requested "clinical flexibility" and asked the Oireachtas to omit to enshrine a descriptive text (viz. 'on the balance of probabilities) in their Bill.

The Master of the NMH has got what she requested. That is why the Oireachtas did not legislate to demand the stricter, descriptive test, as suggested by the Supreme Court in the X case.

The omission to lay down the test, as requested, actually provides major flexibility to doctors, and was a major concession.

The problem here is a chronic lack of understanding of the Act, including perhaps by the Master of the NMH, who has not even understood her own request after it was granted.

What was the descriptive test and how would it have prevented the problem she mentions?

Only you seem to be saying that because it wasn't worse than it is, she's got nothing to complain about. That doesn't make sense.

Is what she's saying untrue?

Andpractically speaking, in the example she gave, at what point could she terminate the pregnancy?

conorh91 · 21-06-2015 10:30PM

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

I have never, in all my years heard a medical practitioner refer to a spontaneous abortion as anything other than a spontaneous abortion, a miscarriage or a a sub division of spontaneous abortion - inevitable abortion, missed abortion etc. In the later cases it is clear that it does not refer, nor is it synonymous with therapeutic abortion.

Unless you are challenging the medical definition of abortion, you are clutching at straws here. The increasingly rambling nature of your posts attest to an argument that is scrambling for a focus in light of indisputable facts: the term 'abortion' in medical literature does not refer simply to an intervention which, either as its primary intention or otherwise, destroys the life of the unborn. An abortion has a far wider meaning than that, and this explains the Dublin Declaraton's use of the qualified term 'direct abortion'.

If you want to try argue that they are misusing the term abortion, as you have attempted to do already, then you might note that you have been using the term incorrectly, from a medical viewpoint.

conorh91 · 21-06-2015 10:33PM

volchitsa wrote: »

What was the descriptive test and how would it have prevented the problem she mentions?

Finlay CJ's 'balance of probabilities' test in the X case.

Is what she's saying untrue?

From your description of the interview, yes.

Andpractically speaking, in the example she gave, at what point could she terminate the pregnancy?

If she made a clinical judgment in good faith that there existed a real and substantial threat to the life of the mother, she was entitled to terminate the pregnancy.

I quote from RoundHall/Westlaw IE's annotated legislation database, re s.7 of the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013:

...in introducing the Bill to the House, the Minister for Health echoed the test espoused in the Supreme Court and stated that the decision was to be made on the balance of probabilities. The failure to include this element of the test in the legislation leaves this to be a decision made by the doctors using their own clinical judgment…. this section does not give any more guidance to doctors as to what constitutes a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman as it is a clinical decision and not a legal test. What this section does give, however, is protection to doctors who carry out a termination, provided it is a reasonable decision made in good faith.

ProfessorPlum · 21-06-2015 10:39PM

conorh91 wrote: »

The Master of the NMH has got what she requested. That is why the Oireachtas did not legislate to demand the stricter, descriptive test, as suggested by the Supreme Court in the X case.

The omission to lay down the test, as requested, actually provides major flexibility to doctors, and was a major concession.

On the contrary, she did not. What she wanted was repeal of the 8th amendment. What she got was a compromise in the legislation to enact it - which as you said was more flexible than that proposed. Do you suggest she should have thrown the baby out with the bath water so to speak, and not bothered trying to at least achieve that concession, given that the 8th was not up for discussion?

conorh91 wrote: »

Unless you are challenging the medical definition of abortion, you are clutching at straws here. The increasingly rambling nature of your posts attest to an argument that is scrambling for a focus in light of indisputable facts: the term 'abortion' in medical literature does not refer simply to an intervention which, either as its primary intention or otherwise, destroys the life of the unborn. An abortion has a far wider meaning than that, and this explains the Dublin Declaraton's use of the qualified term 'direct abortion'.

If you want to try argue that they are misusing the term abortion, as you have attempted to do already, then you might note that you have been using the term incorrectly, from a medical viewpoint.

Conor, you're really beginning to confuse yourself here. Please read over my posts again. I think i've been fairly clear. Perhaps not to you.
It's difficult to know how to please you since earlier you admonished me for being too technical (your point about aviation leasing

), and now, I'm not being technical enough. It's only fair to point out that this is not a medical forum, and it's generally accepted here that abortion means therapeutic abortion (I won't even entertain 'direct', as it's not a theological forum either). It is only since the dublin declaration was introduced and the discussion of their term 'direct abortion' that it has become necessary to distinguish between the various meanings. No do try to keep up.

volchitsa · 21-06-2015 10:40PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Finlay CJ's 'balance of probabilities' test in the X case.

From your description of the interview, yes.

If she made a clinical judgment in good faith that there existed a real and substantial threat to the life of the mother, she was entitled to terminate the pregnancy.

I quote from RoundHall/Westlaw IE's annotated legislation database, re s.7 of the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act 2013:
...in introducing the Bill to the House, the Minister for Health echoed the test espoused in the Supreme Court and stated that the decision was to be made on the balance of probabilities. The failure to include this element of the test in the legislation leaves this to be a decision made by the doctors using their own clinical judgment…. this section does not give any more guidance to doctors as to what constitutes a real and substantial risk to the life of the woman as it is a clinical decision and not a legal test. What this section does give, however, is protection to doctors who carry out a termination, provided it is a reasonable decision made in good faith.

No need to pretend to be unsure whether my description is accurate, you can listen to the link, I even gave the time of that exact example.

But your reply is clearly off topic anyway, because the point was that these babies can't live yet the mother can't terminate unless and until a threat to her life occurs, by which time it may be too late.

So again, what has she misunderstood about the fact that doctor (or rather pregnant woman) can't always afford to wait until the illness actually occurs, given that there is nothing to be gained by doing so?

ProfessorPlum · 21-06-2015 10:44PM

volchitsa wrote: »

No need to pretend to be unsure whether my description is accurate, you can listen to the link, I even gave the time of that exact example.

But your reply is clearly off topic anyway, because the point was that these babies can't live yet the mother can't terminate unless and until a threat to her life occurs, by which time it may be too late.

So again, what has she misunderstood about the fact that doctor (or rather pregnant woman) can't always afford to wait until the illness actually occurs, given that there is nothing to be gained by doing so?

It's always nice to see people who will never be either the doctor or the patient in these cases, pontificating about how straight forward the decision would be. He must have a comfy armchair!

8th Amendment

Comments