8th Amendment

Atlantis50 wrote: »

But not defend it when it's attacked by colleagues on her profession?

Why should she come out and defend something that's she's already on record as supporting. I think I much more likely that if her position had changed she would be more likely to publically correct the record

The report launch was held in the "Pillar Room" of the Rotunda which is a function room that anyone can book ("Friends of the Rotunda" rent it out to raise funds for the hospital):

https://www.for.ie/FunctionRoom.aspx

Yours is not an unreasonable assumption and it was a good stroke on O'Gorman's part.

And given that Dr Coulter Smith is on record as to his position on the legislation being cumbersome and unworkable, maybe it's not an unreasonable assumption. It's also not unreasonable that the Master might veto renting a room in his hospital to a group who he didn't agree with, on grave moral grounds, if that were actually so.

That's only speculation. As I've already posted, we can't go on the assumption of a "silent majority".

What we do know is 5 GPs out of 2500 are members of Doctors for Choice.

What isn't speculation is the fact that doctors who publicat 'come out' as pro choice can be dismissed from their job, or denied a contract in a catholic ethos hospital. That is a fact.

So as someone with no medical training, with a fear of doctors and I can just about put a band aid on and yet I just managed to sign the Dublin Declaration!!

As much as it pains me to add my name (fake) to the list it should go some way to prove that anyone can sign it and thus it means nothing!!

I used a fake name, fake credentials (I just made up any old nonsense and it was accepted)

You should see what I wrote in the comments section though............NSFW!!

lazygal wrote: »

http://www.dublindeclaration.com/sign-up/

I'll just leave this here.......

Suprised there is no Prof Bruce Wayne signed it yet. Thats ridiculous thing to use as a source. Might aswell use wikipedia how many of those "professionals" are real hahaha

Populating a profit and loss account with those who support prohibition on abortion/the Dublin declaration on one side, and those who support the amnesty submission/choice on the other, is not going to give you an answer.

The legislative framework needs to be re-examined if (1) if a reasonable body of obstetric opinion believes that the law fetters their ability to provide obstetric care and (2) if that view is supported by a reasonable interpretation of the legal position.

It is clear to anyone looking at the situation honestly that the answers to (1) and (2) are yes.

What the response to that re-examination is a much more difficult question. Repealing the 8th amendment as a slogan is fine, but it will have significant consequences, with varying levels of support for each. The only workable way to manage such a big issue is to have a bunch of different referenda on the same day dealing with the core 4 issues (perhaps many more):

1. FFA is the most straightforward to deal with (but is still difficult) by way of referendum.
2. People seem to think that rape/incest can similarly be carved out but it is almost impossible to do so in a way that would be workable and would carry popular support (the most obvious difficulty being that it is impossible to reasonably verify the grounds for abortion in these circumstances).
3. Elaboration on the meaning of 'substantial threat to life' and widening to incorporate a threat to health; whatever form of words, or guidelines, that is chosen will face significant objection from the other side. My own view is that assessment of what is a substantial risk should be for the patient primarily to decide following factual advice from their doctor - just as they do with any other medical intervention. But I can see that being vehemently opposed by many.
4. Elective abortion; while I doubt it will pass, the people should have the opportunity to give their view on elective abortion up to a particular time limit (which should be subject of pre-referendum oireachtas committees).

Atlantis50 wrote: »

I presume the dismissal of Dr Rhona Mahony, Master of the National Maternity Hospital (Chaired by Catholic Archbishop of Dublin) is threfore imminent?

And the post you quoted referred specifically to GPs, most of whom are private practitioners. Who can dismiss them for their views?

Has Dr Mahony 'come out' as pro choice?

Or is she just highlighting the difficulties in providing the best standard of care in our current legal environment?

(And where did anyone say we were just taking about GP's? )

frag420 wrote: »

So I was listening to Newstalk this morning and they had Cora Sherlock who is deputy chair of the pro life campaign. One of the points she made was that the abortion issues is an Irish issue and someone like Amnesty International basically sticking their beak into an Irish problem is not needed nor wanted, its something the Irish people need to debate themselves.

But yet the anti choice side are happy to include hundreds of signatures from doctors from outside of Ireland of various experience and credentials.

So which is it? If we remove the signatures of everyone on the DD from outside of Ireland and without the relevant experience and qualifications (me included) then how many would we have left? A bulk no less..........

Her Legatus teammates are all too willing to accept millions from foreign fundamentalist millionaires.

SpaceTime wrote: »

It actually disproportionately impacts non Irish women.

If you're a middle income non EU citizen (including an American) you're kinda stuck with whatever the Irish system supplies if you live here.

It's worse if you've total dependence on the HSE and Irish state. For example, a refugee applicant.

My other concern is that it may well have an economic impact on Ireland too.

If you were a woman or partner of a woman of child bearing age would you want to move here and have kids in a system where your life might be put at risk.

We're trying to attract the best IT talent and many of those people are women, have wives, girlfriends and daughters.

My other half works in one such sector and after the horror show of a braindead pregnant woman and Savita they are extremely reluctant to come here. Even the lack of transarency around our actual maternal death rate spells out that Ireland is harldy the best little country in which to be a woman of child bearing age.

I'm unsure about having another baby, and to be brutally honest the eighth amendment is one reason why. It being in place makes it crystal clear that I'm at risk of being another statistic that proves the eighth amendment has been a disaster for women in Ireland, not just Irish women.

Atlantis50 wrote: »

GAURI van GULIK hasn't got a shred of credibility on this issue given her past - she formerly worked as a spin-doctor for abortionist conglomerate Marie Stopes International (where she was the European Advocacy Officer).

:eek:

OMG is it true the CEO earns 500k a year??????

SpaceTime wrote: »

The reality though is that the state is too chicken to deal with this.

They'll face down Irish Water protests and anti austerity people but they won't go near this because they've no backbone.

That's what it comes down to.

I don't think Irish politicians are en mass conservative, they're just mostly cowards.

Yes, pretty much what Miriam Lord said about those who appeared on a Vincent Brown show last week. Full of chat about every single topic, then fell deathly silent when asked if the eighth amendment will be repealed. They are still more afraid of doing something unpopular than taking a chance and doing something brave.

Atlantis50 wrote: »

GAURI van GULIK hasn't got a shred of credibility on this issue given her past - she formerly worked as a spin-doctor for abortionist conglomerate Marie Stopes International (where she was the European Advocacy Officer).

Unlike Prof Eamon O'Dwyer who stated that the X case (involving a 14 year old girl) was as a result of consensual sex, and decried the decision of the Supreme sort to allow married couples to use contraceptive (available on prescription only of course).

Double standards??

SpaceTime wrote: »

They don't even have to make the decision - the people will!

They won't even ask the question though!!

I think this is where Cora Sherlock, David Quinn and others fall down. If they really believed that the people who can vote will support the idea that Ireland is a havan for prolife people, surely they'd trust the people to vote the 'right' way. I think they really know that this vote would be the end of the line for them, they've lost the marriage and kids arguement, the X case has been legislated for and people when polled aren't as black and white about abortion as they were in 1983. So they fear they won't get the right answer, and they'll make sure the question can't even be asked or debated.