Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

8th Amendment

1…4950525455…65

Comments

  • #1532
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,228 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    Except that "nice" is not the word that comes to my mind! :rolleyes:

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #1533
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,816 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Except that "nice" is not the word that comes to my mind! :mad:

    Feck it - forgot the emoji again! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • #1534
    volchitsa
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,228 ✭✭✭✭volchitsa


    :o
    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    Feck it - forgot the emoji again! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
    No I got it, but the :mad: wasn't meant for you. I realized how it looked once I saw it posted, but too late - you'd seen it too. :o

    "If a woman cannot stand in a public space and say, without fear of consequences, that men cannot be women, then women have no rights at all." Helen Joyce



  • #1535
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    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.
    Fair enough, I went to the trouble of listening to the link, and I am afraid your description was inaccurate. You said:

    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.

    That's not exactly what was said. Dr Mahony said that as soon as chorioamnionitis is indicated, she would feel confident enough in terminating the pregnancy. So while it may take 48 hours to identify chorioamnionitis, there is no difficulty in identifying chorioamnionitis as dangerous. As soon as a diagnosis is made, a termination may be effected.

    In fact, I still believe Dr Mahony is mistaken. If chorioamnionitis is a likely outcome in 30% of cases of ruptured membranes, then she would be permitted, on the basis of the legal annotation provided in my earlier post, to terminate the pregnancy provided her clinical judgment was made in good faith.


  • #1536
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,816 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Fair enough, I went to the trouble of listening to the link, and I am afraid your description was inaccurate. You said:

    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.

    That's not exactly what was said. Dr Mahony said that as soon as chorioamnionitis is indicated, she would feel confident enough in terminating the pregnancy. So while it may take 48 hours to identify chorioamnionitis, there is no difficulty in identifying chorioamnionitis as dangerous. As soon as a diagnosis is made, a termination may be effected.

    In fact, I still believe Dr Mahony is mistaken. If chorioamnionitis is a likely outcome in 30% of cases of ruptured membranes, then she would be permitted, on the basis of the legal annotation provided in my earlier post, to terminate the pregnancy provided her clinical judgment was made in good faith.

    Well, that would be unfortunate then for the small number of pregnancies where chorioamnionitis doesn't develop, and produces a live birth. I don't think you realise the balancing act required in some of these cases.


  • Advertisement
  • #1537
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    Well, that would be unfortunate then for the small number of pregnancies where chorioamnionitis doesn't develop, and produces a live birth.
    It's a clinical decision, not a legal one.

    In any termination whose honest objective is to save the life of the mother, there will to be a possibility that the mother would not have died. The law does not expect clinicians to be psychic mediums. It merely asks that they form their decisions that a real and substantial risk exists, in good faith, and gives them the freedom to define a real and substantial risk themselves.

    So some doctors will think that a 20% risk is substantial, others will have a minimum threshold of 50%, maybe even higher. This is a clinical decision. Dr Mahony asked for this flexibility in her submission to the Oireachtas health Committee… and now Dr Mahony is complaining about it, or she doesn't understand it?


  • #1538
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    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!

    I'm.guessing many posters, unlike myself, haven't had the direct experience of being a patient of Dr Mahony and experience of her making clinical decisions about their care. For example, I was in theatre within ten minutes of her making a decision to deliver my second baby when various unexpected things happened. I'd rather her make decisions than other posters who seem to think they know better about treating women like me.


  • #1539
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    lazygal wrote: »
    posters who seem to think they know better about treating women like me.
    Nobody has suggested such a thing.

    The only reason I criticized Dr Mahony's remarks is because she appears to be claiming that she doesn't have the clinical freedoms in Irish law which she does in fact have.

    I am therefore criticizing her apparent misunderstanding of the Protection of life During Preganncy Act 2013, and not her clinical judgment, which is granted a very wide berth as she herself requested.

    Nevertheless, on the topic of obstetrical expertise, I assume you also think the professional opinions of those obstetricians who signed the Dublin Declaration should be similarly immune from non-expert criticism? Or do you only oppose non-expert criticism when it contradicts your outlook?


  • #1540
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,816 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    conorh91 wrote: »
    It's a clinical decision, not a legal one.

    If only all these decisions that doctors have to make were purely clinical ones. And that is precisely what Dr Mahony and others are asking for - not to be criminalised for a clinical decision.


    Taking your earlier example:

    " If chorioamnionitis is a likely outcome in 30% of cases of ruptured membranes, then she would be permitted, on the basis of the legal annotation provided in my earlier post, to terminate the pregnancy provided her clinical judgment was made in good faith."

    I don't agree that she would. You are implying that termination is permissible in any case of ruptured membranes because the chance of chorioamnioitis is 30%. Most clinicians would feel that that is not a reasonable stance. And if the pregnancy was terminated purely on these grounds, then she would be looking at a stretch inside, even if her decision was made in good faith, because the decision may not have been reasonable. That's harsh.


  • #1541
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,816 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    conorh91 wrote: »

    So some doctors will think that a 20% risk is substantial, others will have a minimum threshold of 50%, maybe even higher. This is a clinical decision.

    So what happens when the doctor's threshold is 50%, maybe even higher, but the woman doesn't really fancy facing more than say a 10% chance of dying. Where do we stand then?

    What would you consider a reasonable percentage risk of death to put yourself at, tomorrow say?


  • Advertisement
  • #1542
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    I don't agree that she would. You are implying that termination is permissible in any case of ruptured membranes because the chance of chorioamnioitis is 30%. Most clinicians would feel that that is not a reasonable stance.
    Firstly, you cannot claim to know what "most clinicians" would feel is reasonable, especially without context.

    But more importantly, the test is not a statistical survey of what most doctors would consider reasonable. You are confusing the reasonable person with the merely average. 10 out of 10 doctors might consider a 30% chance of mortality to be insubstantial, but they may well consider disagreement to be reasonable. As I said, the clinician is given a wide berth, provided s/he acts in good faith.
    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    So what happens when the doctor's threshold is 50%, maybe even higher, but the woman doesn't really fancy facing more than say a 10% chance of dying. Where do we stand then?
    Then she should seek the opinion of alternative obstetricians. Dr Mahony herself, in the interview that was linked-to earlier, said that she might disagree with her patients on acceptable risk.

    At the end of the day, it would be wrong to deny obstetricians and psychiatrists clinical flexibility.
    What would you consider a reasonable percentage risk of death to put yourself at, tomorrow say?
    Ideally I would like a small a chance as possible, but of course that doesn't mean that I have the right to impose unreasonably upon the rights of others in order to achieve my aim. In other words, the decision is ultimately not mine, but one which society must make together in a well-ordered democracy.


  • #1543
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,816 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Firstly, you cannot claim to know what "most clinicians" would feel is reasonable, especially without context.

    Hang on - you didn't include context - you said:

    " If chorioamnionitis is a likely outcome in 30% of cases of ruptured membranes, then she would be permitted, on the basis of the legal annotation provided in my earlier post, to terminate the pregnancy provided her clinical judgment was made in good faith."

    You're wrong. I'm just pointing out to you that all might not be as black and white as you think.

    As for what most clinicians would think - here's the HSE's guidelines for management. I think they back up my opinion that rushing in to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of what might happen in 30% of cases is unreasonable.
    http://www.hse.ie/eng/about/Who/clinical/natclinprog/obsandgynaeprogramme/pretermrupture.pdf

    conorh91 wrote: »
    Then she should seek the opinion of alternative obstetricians. Dr Mahony herself, in the interview that was linked-to earlier, said that she might disagree with her patients on acceptable risk.

    Yes because there's always the time available, not to mention a gaggle of obstetricians (hopefully ones with a slightly lower threshold of risk that they are prepared to let another individual to shoulder) about to do that. :rolleyes:

    I think Dr Mahony's point was that perhaps the woman might have a say in what risk she'd like to take?

    conorh91 wrote: »
    At the end of the day, it would be wrong to deny obstetricians and psychiatrists clinical flexibility.

    Indeed it would. Or is, rather.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    Ideally I would like a small a chance as possible, but of course that doesn't mean that I have the right to impose unreasonably upon the rights of others in order to achieve my aim. In other words, the decision is ultimately not mine, but one which society must make together in a well-ordered democracy.

    Convenient then for you that you won't have to take a 10%, 50%, or maybe even higher risk of dying tomorrow, isn't it?


  • #1544
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    Hang on - you didn't include context - you said:

    " If chorioamnionitis is a likely outcome in 30% of cases of ruptured membranes, then she would be permitted, on the basis of the legal annotation provided in my earlier post, to terminate the pregnancy provided her clinical judgment was made in good faith."

    Because it isn't necessary to do so when there is already a provision that the clinician must react to the chorioamnionitis reasonably and in good faith. It goes without saying that she must therefore consider the context. That is blindingly obvious to me, but consider yourself told now just in case it wasn't obvious to you

    here's the HSE's guidelines for management. I think they back up my opinion that rushing in to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of what might happen in 30% of cases is unreasonable.
    http://www.hse.ie/eng/about/Who/clinical/natclinprog/obsandgynaeprogramme/pretermrupture.pdf
    At 1.30am on a Monday morning, I have no intention of sifting through 20 pages of guidelines trying to excavate a line to which you are referring.

    What passage in that document, that you have apparently read, demonstrates that a termination would be unreasonable?
    Yes because there's always the time available, not to mention a gaggle of obstetricians (hopefully ones with a slightly lower threshold of risk that they are prepared to let another individual to shoulder) about to do that:roll eyes:
    Not my problem, frankly.

    Do you disagree with Dr Mahony's submission that doctors should have clinical flexibility?

    You feel that obstetricians should have no clinical freedom, and that their judgment should be informed by law, and not medical expertise?

    Indeed it would. Or is, rather.
    You're wrong. You need to improve your knowledge of the relevant Act, because you misunderstand it.


  • #1545
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Nobody has suggested such a thing.

    The only reason I criticized Dr Mahony's remarks is because she appears to be claiming that she doesn't have the clinical freedoms in Irish law which she does in fact have.

    I am therefore criticizing her apparent misunderstanding of the Protection of life During Preganncy Act 2013, and not her clinical judgment, which is granted a very wide berth as she herself requested.

    Nevertheless, on the topic of obstetrical expertise, I assume you also think the professional opinions of those obstetricians who signed the Dublin Declaration should be similarly immune from non-expert criticism? Or do you only oppose non-expert criticism when it contradicts your outlook?

    Dr. Mahony dismissed the Dublin declaration. And rightly so, considering most of its signatories aren't medical professionals practicing obstetrics. Anyway I'm glad the names of those using terms like "direct abortion" are publicised because on the off chance I'll encounter them.if I have another baby I'll know who not to allow near me. This is academic for you because you'll never be pregnant. I've been pregnant twice and I'd like to think me and not the zygote or foetus inside me is the priority and that my dying won't be dismissed in the high handed manner you seem to think is acceptable.


  • #1546
    liquoriceall
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 454 ✭✭liquoriceall


    lazygal wrote: »
    Dr. Mahony dismissed the Dublin declaration. And rightly so, considering most of its signatories aren't medical professionals practicing obstetrics. Anyway I'm glad the names of those using terms like "direct abortion" are publicised because on the off chance I'll encounter them.if I have another baby I'll know who not to allow near me. This is academic for you because you'll never be pregnant. I've been pregnant twice and I'd like to think me and not the zygote or foetus inside me is the priority and that my dying won't be dismissed in the high handed manner you seem to think is acceptable.
    I think you are safe enough from looking through the list of names I dont believe too many of these doctors are practicing in Ireland.....if they exist in the first place!


  • #1547
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    liquoriceall wrote: »
    I think you are safe enough from looking through the list of names I dont believe too many of these doctors are practicing in Ireland.....if they exist in the first place!

    Yeah the "doctors" listed are mainly doctors in subjects other than medicine anyway!


  • #1548
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,816 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    So what happens when the doctor's threshold is 50%, maybe even higher, but the woman doesn't really fancy facing more than say a 10% chance of dying. Where do we stand then?

    What would you consider a reasonable percentage risk of death to put yourself at, tomorrow say?
    conorh91 wrote: »
    Then she should seek the opinion of alternative obstetricians.
    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    Yes because there's always the time available, not to mention a gaggle of obstetricians (hopefully ones with a slightly lower threshold of risk that they are prepared to let another individual to shoulder) about to do that. :rolleyes:

    I think Dr Mahony's point was that perhaps the woman might have a say in what risk she'd like to take?
    conorh91 wrote: »
    Not my problem, frankly.


    Well, that was an interesting exchange.

    Not my problem, frankly.

    That kind of sums it up doesn't it? Except that someday it might be your problem. It might be your wife, your girlfriend, your sister, your daughter.


  • #1549
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    It's the Peter Mathews "we're all going to die anyway" approach to medicine.


  • #1550
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    lazygal wrote: »
    Yeah the "doctors" listed are mainly doctors in subjects other than medicine anyway!

    18 are Fellows of the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, including 3 Professors of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2 of whom have also been Masters of Irish maternity hospitals. Fellows of the College are leading experts in their field who have been elected Fellows by their peers.

    13 are members of the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. These are doctors on the Specialist Register eligible to be considered 'run of the mill' consultant obstetricians.

    46 are Fellows of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

    But boardsies know best….


  • #1551
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »
    Well, that was an interesting exchange.

    Not my problem, frankly.
    Ehh you're misquoting that. It's not my problem if there aren't enough obstetricians in the neighborhood to accede to her wishes. You cannot have an infinite supply of obstetricians to accede to every conceivable viewpoint. I didn't say that a woman's views were not my problem. I am not interested in wasting my time on someone who deliberately misquotes people to win thanks.

    You've also engaged in outright lies on this thread so I'll leave you to your own devices.


  • Advertisement
  • #1552
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    conorh91 wrote: »
    18 are Fellows of the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, including 3 Professors of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2 of whom have also been Masters of Irish maternity hospitals. Fellows of the College are leading experts in their field who have been elected Fellows by their peers.

    13 are members of the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. These are doctors on the Specialist Register eligible to be considered 'run of the mill' consultant obstetricians.

    46 are Fellows of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

    But boardsies know best….

    Foot and shoot come to mind about your post. 1013 signatories and only 77 work in the area concerned according to your post I quoted.


  • #1553
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    conorh91 wrote: »
    18 are Fellows of the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, including 3 Professors of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, 2 of whom have also been Masters of Irish maternity hospitals. Fellows of the College are leading experts in their field who have been elected Fellows by their peers.

    13 are members of the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. These are doctors on the Specialist Register eligible to be considered 'run of the mill' consultant obstetricians.

    46 are Fellows of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

    But boardsies know best….


    And how many aren't in any way remotely connected to medical, let alone OBGYN, fields? and why would they be signing something concerning excellence in maternal health which has an unerring focus on making sure women in Ireland who can't get the flight to the UK won't have access to abortion in Ireland?


    Also, the always excellent Oldrnwiser:
    Now, on to the declaration. The declaration which arose out of a symposium of just 150 medical professionals has now attracted 700 signatures. Now even if all of these professionals are doctors and Irish that is still just 4% of the total doctors registered in Ireland. However, this figure is subdivided as follows:

    225 OBGYNs
    307 Medical Professionals (Aren't they all medical professionals?)
    41 Midwives & Nurses
    34 Neonatologists & Paediatricians
    13 Medical Students (Seriously?)

    So, firstly, the "over 700 signatories" touted by the website turns out to be just 620.
    Secondly, there are 41 nurses & midwives who have signed the declaration. However, according to An Bord Altranais there were over 66,000 active registered nurses in Ireland in 2013. That's just 0.06% of the total. So again completely unrepresentative.
    Thirdly, there are 13 medical students included. Even though this declaration is just an opinion piece anyway, why the well would the signatures of medical students be at all persuasive. I'm sure they signed because of all their years of experience in dealing with the complications of pregnancy.

    Now, the most important question here is whether these signatories are Irish. From the perspective of whether or not the claim is true, nationality is irrelevant, however, the Dublin Declaration supporters such as yourself are promulgating this statement as if it is somehow meaningful or representative of the opinions of doctors. Even if all these doctors were Irish, their opinions would just be a tiny minority, but the question is are they all Irish?

    As it turns out, unsurprisingly, NO.

    Let's take some examples, starting with the Medical Professionals group:


    Dr. John Wilks (Signature no. 307, Medical Professionals)

    Writer for pro-life website lifeissues.net and a Consultant Pharmacist (in Japan).


    Dr. Douglas Randell BSc(Med) MBBS, DAvMed, MACTM, FRACGP, FACAsM (Signature no. 294, Medical Professionals)

    A specialist in Aerospace medicine with a registered clinic at:

    Harrison Road,
    Duntroon,
    Canberra 2600,
    Australia


    Dr. Eamonn Mathieson MBBS FANZCA
    Dr. Rhys Morgan MBBS (Hons) FANZCA
    (Signatures 265 & 266, Medical Professionals)

    Both of the above are registered anaesthetists and hold the qualification FANZCA (Fellow of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists. Mathieson currently works at the Mercy Hospital for Women in Melbourne, while Morgan no longer actually practices medicine but rather sits on a number of boards and committees including government medical advisory committees, chairman of Welseley Anaesthesia & Pain Management Group and the board of a rural development programme in Shaanxi province, China. Of course all this free time away from medicine means that he could complete his degree in theology from the Australian College of Theology.


    Dr. Jonathan Baré MBBS FRACS (Signature 267, Medical Professionals)


    A qualified surgeon from Melbourne, Bare specialises in Knee & Hip Surgery. So I'm sure he's eminently qualified to speak about his 0 years of experience in dealing with pregnant women.


    Dr. Joseph Turner MBBS, BMedSc(Hons), PhD, FACRRM (Signature 239, Medical Professionals)

    A qualified doctor and pharmacy lecturer, Turner specialises in Rural and Remote Medicine (FACRRM). So he was ideally suited to dealing with all the pregnant women he encountered while serving as Lead Doctor on US TV series Survivor.


    Dr. Amanda Lamont MBBS, DipWH, CFCMC, CFCE (Signature 203, Medical Professionals)

    A fertility specialist, Lamont practices medicine from her clinic in:

    Suite 15, Dr 7 Medical Centre 162 Wanneroo Rd, Yokine WA 6060, Australia

    So a woman who spends her professional life helping women to conceive is against abortion. Gee, there's a shocker.


    Dr. Dominic Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh (Signature 84, Medical Professionals)

    A triple specialist, Pedulla specialises in cardiology, vein diseases and vascular medicine at the Oklahoma Vein & Endovascular Center. I'm sure that he has lots of conversations about abortion as he spends his days blasting varicose veins from little old ladies.


    The medical professionals group is a disparate group of doctors from across the globe whose expertise in the area (the one thing that even be remotely persuasive) is borderline at best. And this is supposed to be proof of what exactly?


    As for the OBGYN group:

    Dr. John North MBBS, FRACS, FAOrthA (Signature 212, Obstetricians & Gynaecologists)

    John North is a qualified orthopaedic surgeon with 38 years of specialist experience in Queensland. Hold on, isn't this supposed to be the list of OBGYNs. Oops! The FAOrthA qualification should have been a dead giveaway.


    Dr. Norman Gage MRCOG, UK FRANZGOG (Signature 213, Obstetricians & Gynaecologists)

    A member of Doctors for the Family, Gage has campaigned against same-sex marriage along with his fundamentalist Christian cohorts. So I'm sure he is relying on solid medical evidence in forming his opinion and not his religious beliefs. Right?


    Dr. Margaret Hart DO (Signature 158, Obstetricians & Gynaecologists)


    A specialist in geriatric medicine from Jackson, Minnesota. I'm sure she must be totally outraged at all the senior citizens plaguing her for abortions.


    Dr. Sebastian Borges MBBS, DGO, DHSM, LM, MRCOG (Signature 32, Obstetricians & Gynaecologists)

    This name should stand out if none of the others don't. A qualified OBGYN, Borges practiced in Irish hospitals in the 1980s before relocating to Scotland. Borges was struck off in 2001 for sexually inappropriate and unnecessary examinations of women in the UK. A bastion of moral courage right there.

    All told out of the 225 names on this list there are over 150 Americans not to mention doctors from Australia, Colombia, Malta, Italy, France, Poland, Canada, Spain and Chile. In total less than 30 of the 225 names are active registered doctors in Ireland.

    As for the Neonatologists & Paediatricians group, well what do you know the same ragtag bunch of fundamentalist christians (Michelle Cretella is a writer for lifesitenews and an anti-SSM campaigner) and non-nationals. In this list just 2 out of 34 names are Irish. Even this list, however isn't immune from the falsehoods of the other list. One name on the list stands out: Eucharia Anunobi. While listed as a doctor, this former actress turned evangelical minister has no such qualifications.


    This list is worse than useless, it is composed of doctors (mostly non-specialists) giving their opinion. Many of them belong to conservative Christian advocacy groups indicating their positions have more to do with religion than any real medical science. Only a small fraction of the overall list is Irish meaning that whatever way you slice it, these opinions don't represent anyone but the people who signed. It has no bearing on best practice or the opinions of the majority of doctors.


    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=90425417


  • #1554
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,816 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Ehh you're misquoting that. It's not my problem if there aren't enough obstetricians in the neighborhood to accede to her wishes. You cannot have an infinite supply of obstetricians to accede to every conceivable viewpoint. I didn't say that a woman's views were not my problem. I am not interested in wasting my time on someone who deliberately misquotes people to win thanks.

    You've also engaged in outright lies on this thread so I'll leave you to your own devices.

    I quoted the entire exchange. I did not misquote you.

    It's not your problem that she doesn't have any input into what risk to her life she is willing to take.

    And please do direct me to the 'outright lies' I've posted. It seems that now that you're struggling to justify your position, you've taken to mud slinging instead. Not altogether surprising.


  • #1555
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    Lazygal you're copying and pasting a post that I previously responded to.
    traprunner wrote: »
    Foot and shoot come to mind about your post. 1013 signatories and only 77 work in the area concerned according to your post I quoted.
    Not at all. I haven't counted psychiatrists, for example, or specialists who are entitled to co-certify a termination, for example surgeons, neurologists or cardiologists.

    s.7 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 requires certification by (i) an obstetrician and (ii) a medical practitioner of another relevant specialty.

    S.9 of the same Act requires the certification of two psychiatrists.

    A lot of people seem confused on that point. This isn't simply about obstetricians, although there is no shortage of them who have signed the Dublin Declaration. As I have said, many of them are leading experts within their own faculty who have been deemed to have made a significant contribution to their field.

    Where are the 77 experts who refute them? Do we even have 7?


  • #1556
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    conorh91 wrote: »
    Lazygal you're copying and pasting a post that I previously responded to.

    Not at all. I haven't counted psychiatrists, for example, or specialists who are entitled to permit a termination, for example surgeons, neurologists or cardiologists.

    s.7 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 requires certification by (i) an obstetrician and (ii) a medical practitioner of another relevant specialty.

    S.9 of the same Act requires the certification of two psychiatrists.

    A lot of people seem confused on that point. This isn't simply about obstetricians, although there is no shortage of them
    Why would those who practice medicine outside of Ireland in fields entirely unconnected to those dealing with pregnant women in Ireland, sign something dedicated to ensuring women in Ireland can't access abortion services in Ireland? When was the last time a cardiologist performed an abortion in an Irish hospital? Why would he or she be doing such a procedure, as opposed to someone trained in how to perform surgical abortions?


  • #1557
    conorh91
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,328 ✭✭✭conorh91


    lazygal wrote: »
    Why would those who practice medicine outside of Ireland
    This isn't only relevant to Ireland. Obstetric medicine is an international field of expertise. Conditions like chorioamnionitis, referred to earlier, or ectopic pregnancies are no less harmful in Boston than in Ballinasloe. It would be incredibly puerile to exclude international experts like Fellows of the American College of Obstetrics (46 in total)
    in fields entirely unconnected to those dealing with pregnant women
    they're not unconnected.

    Consultants in emergency medicine, psychiatry, cardiology, neurology surgery, as well as many other specialties, may be asked to certify a termination along with an obstetrician, depending on the nature of the life-threatening condition.

    I don't see how people don't get that.


  • #1558
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    conorh91 wrote: »
    This isn't only relevant to Ireland. Obstetric medicine is an international field of expertise. Conditions like chorioamnionitis, referred to earlier, or ectopic pregnancies are no less harmful in Boston than it is in Ballinasloe.

    they're not unconnected.

    Consultants in emergency medicine, psychiatry, cardiology, neurology surgery, as well as many other specialties, may be asked to certify a termination along with an obstetrician, depending on the nature of the life-threatening condition.

    I don't see how people don't get that.

    Why would they come to Dublin to attend a symposium on excellence in maternal health that focused on how to keep women in Ireland unable to access abortion services here? I think you're overly focused on this declaration anyway. A cursory read of the declaration and the backgrounds of those who signed it, including as in the quote a doctor struck off for sexual misconduct and medical students who don't even practice, says a lot about the relevance of this declaration.


  • #1559
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,816 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    Just to go back to this point we were discussing last night:
    conorh91 wrote: »
    Because it isn't necessary to do so when there is already a provision that the clinician must react to the chorioamnionitis reasonably and in good faith. It goes without saying that she must therefore consider the context. That is blindingly obvious to me, but consider yourself told now just in case it wasn't obvious to you

    You're clearly out of your depth here. There was no mention of chorioamnioitis being present, so why should a clinician react to it? The situation we were discussing was PROM
    conorh91 wrote: »
    If chorioamnionitis is a likely outcome in 30% of cases of ruptured membranes, then she would be permitted, on the basis of the legal annotation provided in my earlier post, to terminate the pregnancy provided her clinical judgment was made in good faith.

    And as I said, your approach could not be considered reasonable (14 years coming your way perhaps?)
    conorh91 wrote: »
    At 1.30am on a Monday morning, I have no intention of sifting through 20 pages of guidelines trying to excavate a line to which you are referring.

    What passage in that document, that you have apparently read, demonstrates that a termination would be unreasonable?

    Did you manage to get through it? And it's kind of quaint that you think there might be 'a line' or 'a passage'. Stick to law. Or at least your lectures.
    conorh91 wrote: »
    You're wrong. You need to improve your knowledge of the relevant Act, because you misunderstand it.

    So I'm wrong, Dr Mahony is wrong, presumable most of her colleagues are wrong or surely they would have had a word in her ear to tell her to stop making such a fool of herself, but you on the other hand who can ponder situations (with not much actual understanding of them to be frank) and will never have to act on them, is right. OK then.


  • #1560
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    ProfessorPlum wrote: »


    So I'm wrong, Dr Mahony is wrong, presumable most of her colleagues are wrong or surely they would have had a word in her ear to tell her to stop making such a fool of herself, but you on the other hand who can ponder situations (with not much actual understanding of them to be frank) and will never have to act on them, is right. OK then.

    Yes, one boardsie knows better than the master of a major maternity hospital how to apply the law to maternity care in Ireland. But those of us who don't think the Dublin declaration is the last word on obstetric care apparently don't know any better.


  • Advertisement
  • #1561
    ProfessorPlum
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,816 ✭✭✭ProfessorPlum


    traprunner wrote: »
    Foot and shoot come to mind about your post. 1013 signatories and only 77 work in the area concerned according to your post I quoted.

    1013 signatories in a declaration open to anyone to sign, and it's online, so you wouldn't even have to leave the comfort of your own armchair.
    Even if we were to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they are all medical professionals, that's 1013 of a total world wide cohort of medics.

    Yes indeed. That surely must form "a large bulk"


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement