wokingvoter wrote: » No I think that they felt she needed medical attention. Anyone whose lost a baby in any way needs medical attention afterwards, but I would imagine if these pills are normally prescription only, that there was an increased concern about her. I would have thought that was a given. She was also probably emotionally upset. I would be , would you? Your hormones are bound to be all over the place. If she was my flat mate I'd be very worried too. Nobody wants a tragedy.
wokingvoter wrote: » Well that's one of the theories I'd be bouncing around That they were afraid she was behaving in such an irrational fashion as to cause concern about the possibility of suicide
wokingvoter wrote: » Well do we know that the flat mates went directly to the police or did they alert a hospital who then alerted the police? If they did quite deliberately alert the police that a crime had been committed then, that would speak to me that the flat mates were very militant right wing possibly Presbyterian ant abortion activists. Are they likely to be sharing a flat with another girl who made no effort to hide the fact that she had an abortion? Once again, doesn't make any sense.
Cabaal wrote: » Its likely she was in a distressed state after the abortion, I'm not trying to pretend she didn't do what she did at all. ... You have previously decided that she has many many other issues in her life, thats completely speculation on her overall life and mental health by you and is pretty poor form.
Cabaal wrote: » You've read the story right?
Clearly they were not overly concerned at first if they waited 7 days before doing anything
volchitsa wrote: » Could you explain what sort of demeanour you think she displayed that would have led "worried" flatmates to go to the police about her?
volchitsa wrote: » I'm just puzzled that the expression of this "concern" was to report her to the police. People have committed suicide due to being under investigation by the police, so if you were already worried about someone's mental state, going to the police about them would only make sense if you thought they were going to harm someone else. But perhaps you would call the police rather than a doctor or emergency (medical) services if you thought someone was about to kill themselves?
volchitsa wrote: » Would you normally go to the police to persuade your friend to get medical attention? Would they not be aware of the danger that the "cure" would harm her far more than whatever they thought was wrong with her anyway? And I'm puzzled as to what "care" she needed that was so urgent that it required her being hauled up before the judge. And whether she got it. Well, I wonder how bad her symptoms were, when they said that she was blase about the abortion. It sounds from that as though that was what was wrong - that she wasn't upset enough for them. And yes, I'd call that malicious. I think that depends on the country, in some places they are now sold OTC, and presumably follow up care depends on whether or not the woman is having excessive bleeding or whatever.
wokingvoter wrote: » You or I really have no idea why they waited a week I doubt very much it was malicious I know a lot of girls in that age group and the most likely scenario is that they were very concerned that she seek medical attention, which there's no doubt she needed, and they felt they had no choice when she refused.
This combined with the possibility that her general demeanour was causing concern.
I'm presuming that in western countries where these pills are legal that they are prescription only and there is follow up care?
Thousands of people have attended a pro-choice rally outside parliament in Warsaw after the leader of Poland’s ruling party backed a call from Catholic bishops for a full ban on pregnancy terminations. Poland already has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe. Official statistics show only a few hundred abortions are performed every year, but pro-choice campaigners say underground abortions are common. The debate around reproductive rights in Poland has been building up for months. The conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party, which came to power in October, plans to tighten regulations to bring them into line with the Catholic church’s teachings, infuriating liberals and women’s rights activists. Chanting “keep your hands off the uterus” and “my body, my business,” the protesters waved wire coat-hangers, a crude pregnancy termination tool widely seen as a grim symbol of underground abortions. “Even Iran’s abortion laws are more liberal than this proposal. That’s why we must protest,” said Marta Nowak, one of the protesters at the rally, which was organised via social media by the leftwing Together party.
volchitsa wrote: » You don't know that it wasn't. The flatmates knew she had been pregnant, and we have no idea how much searching they had to do to find the fetus. I'm not sure why you think what you suggest would have more discreet than what she did. If only because you don't know that she didn't do exactly what you describe. Could you explain what sort of demeanour you think she displayed that would have led "worried" flatmates to go to the police about her? It sounds as though you think they felt they were in danger from her. Is that what you meant?
wokingvoter wrote: » Why don't you read the thread before you answer? Nowhere have I been disrespectful to this girl! I think she left the items to be found by the flat mates as a cry for help because she was feeling so sick! But you just go right ahead and be outraged and offended by that because sure, what else would you do?
MrPudding wrote: » So presumably, irrespective of the stress, emotional pressure, medical problems or any other issues you might be suffering from, you would never do anything that doesn't make sense? You have no idea what this poor girl was going through. She found herself in a situation she could not handle and forced to do something she likely did not want to do. You do not know what her emotional or mental state was or what she was trying to deal with, but you still feel qualified to declare that her acts should have "made sense"? I hope neither you nor anyone you know ever finds themselves in this position, but know this, if you ever were I would treat you with considerably more compassion than you are showing. MrP
wokingvoter wrote: » Sorry, but nobody who didn't want them to be discovered would throw the baby and the bloodied items into the communal rubbish bin. That just doesn't make any sense. She could have bagged it all up and sealed it and put it more discreetly into a wheelie bin. Any wheelie bin. Discreetly would be the key.
wokingvoter wrote: » I think her flat mates were sufficiently worried about her demeanour a week later to contact the authorities.
wokingvoter wrote: » Sorry, but nobody who didn't want them to be discovered would throw the baby and the bloodied items into the communal rubbish bin. That just doesn't make any sense. She could have bagged it all up and sealed it and put it more discreetly into a wheelie bin. Any wheelie bin. Discreetly would be the key. I think her flat mates were sufficiently worried about her demeanour a week later to contact the authorities.
Cabaal wrote: » I never suggested such a thing, I'm merely pointed out the fact that they were obviously not as concerned as outraged as some people might want to make out, if they were they never would have waited 7 days.
Cabaal wrote: » She was railroaded into a awful situation by a government and health system that failed her by not providing services that she would be entitled to anywhere else in the UK. Its likely she was in a distressed state after the abortion, I'm not trying to pretend she didn't do what she did at all. Also to be honest what other means to you think she can use to dispose of the fetus? She can't drop it into a doctors to have it disposed with the other biohazard material because she knew they'd report her, she threw it in with the household waste. Her flat mates obviously then cared enough about it to report it a week after they found it. You have previously decided that she has many many other issues in her life, thats completely speculation on her overall life and mental health by you and is pretty poor form. Many Irish women decide to opt for pills over travel, it doesn't mean they have issues in their life. It merely means they don't have the money to travel to the UK. That in no way makes them mentally unstable or living life with many many issues.
wokingvoter wrote: » It's terrifying type think that my daughter could go online and buy drugs to induce an abortion.
wokingvoter wrote: » Absolutely anything could have happened to that girl once she took those tablets.
wokingvoter wrote: » So are you suggesting that they acted out of malice when they contacted the police? What would make you think that?
Cabaal wrote: » You've read the story right? So they found the items/fetus and then waited a week before contacting Police, they did not locate them a week after the event and then contact the Police straight away. The Randy Riverbeast's post is spot on in relation to what they said. Clearly they were not overly concerned at first if they waited 7 days before doing anything
Absolam wrote: » Luckily I wasn't looking to persuade anyone they should attach any significance to the study; it was Dr Marsh testifying to the High Court who was doing that. Which demonstrates (as I said) that there was some consideration being given to just how likely survival might be, not that it was a foregone conclusion.
Absolam wrote: » I must admit, I didn't notice anything in the transcript about an open wound to the brain, just one to the head (or skull, depending on which of the mentions you choose)?
Absolam wrote: » [/B] Still, regardless as you say, given there's no evidence they had the extragavance of later evidence, and that N.P.s wound had not progressed quite so much, I still can't see any real reason to think any of the Doctors involved knew from the outset that there was no hope of saving the child. Or even that they thought so. I suppose see above as well so. I see that open brain wound re-appearing there! But to cut to the chase; you don't know what they knew. We can both speculate about what we think they might have, or even ought to have, known, but you don't know, no more than I do. The Doctors certainly knew by the time the court case concluded, but on the 3rd of December, I think it seems unlikely they knew it would become so.
Absolam wrote: » Hmm. Well, there is the fact that in the transcript it says "The plaintiff was advised by the medical staff at the hospital that it was intended to maintain this regime of treatment for the duration of the pregnancy of N.P." which would indicate (at least) that they intended to maintain the pregnancy. And obviously after that, as I pointed out before, it says that "On the 17th December, 2014 a tracheostomy operation was carried out on N.P. to facilitate the continuation of maternal organ supportive measures in an attempt to attain foetal viability." which to me indicates they thought they could attain foetal viability. Now I know; you say it means no such thing, as a trachoestomy is standard for any patient who is being ventilated for anything other than a very short period. So at least you agree there was an intention to provide ventilation for more than a very short period. That you directly refute the statement (an attempt to attain foetal viability) in the transcript is not something that I think I need argue I'm afraid; I'm sure you'll understand that I'd prefer the testimony entered into the Court record over your own version of what happened at the time?
Absolam wrote: » Well, the recent legislation obviously happened quite some time after the Courts provided the judgments that led me to that conclusion, but still I came to the conclusion from reading this: "The Court is therefore satisfied, in the circumstances of this case, that, in the best interest of the unborn child, it should authorise at the discretion of the medical team the withdrawal of ongoing somatic support being provided for N.P. in this tragic and unfortunate case." and this "It would be wholly contrary to the interests of A., as they may now be, for his body to be subjected to the continuing indignity to which it was currently subject" Still, when I read this: ""(b) Where a directive-maker lacks capacity and is pregnant and her advance healthcare directive sets out a specific refusal of treatment that is to apply even if she were pregnant, and it is considered by the healthcare professional concerned that the refusal of treatment would have a deleterious effect on the unborn, an application shall be made to the High Court to determine whether or not the refusal of treatment should apply." I think of the ruling in the case we've been discussing, which said that ' in the best interest of the unborn child, the Court should authorise at the discretion of the medical team the withdrawal of ongoing somatic support. The Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act might have said 'a deleterious effect on the health of the unborn', but it doesn't, it says 'a deleterious effect on the unborn'. I'd suggest that an act that is in the best interest of the unborn child is not at act that has a deleterious effect on the unborn child. I imagine a Court will have an opportunity to rule on the notion at some stage.
Absolam wrote: » Yes it's my calculation. As I said, the transcript shows "The study took in a 30 year period and involved about 30 cases in all. Only 7 fitted into the category of 17 weeks or less gestation at the death of the mother. Of those there were two survivors, one of whom died at 30 days post delivery." 2 out of 7 is 28%. Whether you feel the information that was in the transcript was factually incorrect ...
Absolam wrote: » or misleading because of how it was compared, makes no difference to the fact that it was in the transcript.
Absolam wrote: » Whether or not Doctors may choose to use the literature to draw conclusions with any kind of what they think is statistical power, or even simply use what they can learn from the literature to try and make decisions that may increase the possibility of viability of unborn children in similar circumstances, I can't say; I'm not one of them.
Absolam wrote: » At the very least, the case allowed the High Court to draw parallels with judgements where life support was withdrawn from born persons, both adult and child, demonstrating a parity with and consistency in similar judgements with regards to the right to life for both born and unborn, insofar as in all cases the right to life does not necessarily entail that life must be preserved and prolonged at all costs no matter what the circumstances (re a Ward of Court (witholding medical treatment) (No. 2) [1996] 2 I.R. 79), so Doctors may, at their discretion, decide to withdraw somatic support whether the patient is born, or unborn (Re A (A Minor) [1993] 1 Med L Rev 98).
wokingvoter wrote: » Although I'm struggling to understand what your trying to saying, I would imagine it was the foul aroma from the bin that alerted the flat mates. I didn't want to mention that but as your obviously having trouble getting your head around what happened here I'd better spell it out for you. Smell alerts flat mate. foetus is uncovered. What do you expect them to do?
The male foetus, which was between 10 and 12 weeks, was later found in the bin of a house she shared with two other people.... Police were alerted after the woman's two housemates contacted police, a week after finding blood-stained items and a foetus in the bin of the house they shared in south Belfast
The Randy Riverbeast wrote: » After a week. If I found a body in a bin I wouldn't wait a week. Better put the bins out tonight....wait, I forgot about that body I found. I should probably pop into the gardai next time I'm passing.
wokingvoter wrote: » What we know is that she threw the aborted baby in the bin and left it there. There was no logical read for her to do that. If your trying to pretend that she didn't do that, then that's illogical too
Her flat mates were sufficiently concerned as to contact the authorities. Or do you want to pretend that they didn't? I don't understand why particular aspects of s case can be mentioned here and others can't.
wokingvoter wrote: » What we know is that she threw the aborted baby in the bin and left it there. There was no logical read for her to do that. If your trying to pretend that she didn't do that, then that's illogical too Her flat mates were sufficiently concerned as to contact the authorities. Or do you want to pretend that they didn't? I don't understand why particular aspects of s case can be mentioned here and others can't.
Cabaal wrote: » Potentially something could have happened to her, More the reason why safe legal abortions should have been provided. To be honest you don't know that and its pretty underhanded to speculate like that, perhaps stick to the facts here. What we know here is she wanted an abortion, something that any other UK citizen in England, Scotland or Wales can avail of, and she was denied it due to backwards laws in Northern Ireland. She did not have the money to travel so she opted for something she could afford.
Cabaal wrote: » http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/04/05/it-takes-a-vigil/ [.IMG]http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/IMG_0640.jpg[/IMG] [.IMG]http://cf.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/12963748_1145529292133671_3806698951854232232_n-1.jpg[/IMG]https://www.facebook.com/events/1704134989868897/
Bernadette Smyth/Precious Life's Facebook page wrote: Today in a Belfast Court a 21-year-old woman from Northern Ireland has been given a three month suspended sentence after pleading guilty to two charges (namely procuring her own abortion by using a poison, and of supplying a poison with intent to procure a miscarriage. It is understood from Court reports that the defendant bought drugs on the internet to induce a miscarriage on 12 July 2014. Her little boy aged between 10-12 weeks gestation, was later found in the bin of a house she shared with two other people. Director of Precious Life Bernadette Smyth said that Judge McFarland has seriously undermined the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 which clearly states under section 58, that “Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison or other noxious thing […] shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable to be kept in penal servitude for life. “The woman in this case accepts that she committed a crime by procuring her own abortion by purchasing abortion pills online. Precious Life is very shocked that this judge’s sentencing was so manifestly lenient in respect of such a serious crime, and is very concerned that this court judgment could set a very dangerous precedent for similar cases. “Precious Life will be writing to Mr John Larkin QC, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, and Mr Barra McGrory QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, to have the matter referred back to the Court of Appeal.”
Absolam wrote: » I don't believe it's illegal to travel to commit murder. It's illegal to conspire to commit murder. It's illegal to attempt to commit murder. But travelling to commit one in and of itself? I don't think so.
wokingvoter wrote: » It's terrifying type think that my daughter could go online and buy drugs to induce an abortion. Absolutely anything could have happened to that girl once she took those tablets.
Throwing the aborted baby in the bin afterwards, knowing that it would attract the attention of flat mates, when she could have so easily disposed of it more discreetly, would indicate that she is a very vulnerable person who hopefully now will get some counselling for what I would imagine are many many issues she is dealing with in her life.
Every weekday at 1pm pro-choice activists are assembling outside government buildings to urge a repeal of the Eighth Amendment, in a protest organised by Amnesty International. Their number includes Carol Hunt, who writes: Who knew the American anti-choice brigade were such wimps? Don’t they have the courage of their anti abortion convictions? Donald Trump came out with the logical deduction this week that, if we view abortion to be a crime against an innocent being, then it follows that women who commit this crime should be punished for it. Yet they all seemed shocked and terribly upset that the man could even think such a thing. Trump had to do several U-Turns and admit that criminalising women for having abortions was never going to be a winner – not even in the most rabidly anti-choice states. To which the million, trillion dollar question must be; “Why not?” If anti-choice groups believe that abortion is murder – as they tell us all the time – then surely justice demands that a woman who procures one is a criminal – of the worst kind – and must be punished accordingly? The anti-choice lobby are made of much sterner stuff over here. Up until 2013 abortions were punished under the archaic 1861 Offence Against the Person Act. A woman who “procured” one could get “penal servitude for life”.Yes, as I said, archaic. And so in 2013 the Fine Gael/Labour government replaced this life sentence with… up to 14 years in prison for any woman who had an abortion in this jurisdiction. Maybe Donald Trump heard about this on his last visit here – the one where they rolled out the red carpet and the Irish colleens for him. But no-one will ever be sentenced, say our own home-grown anti-abortion rights groups. Really? Well, yesterday in Northern Ireland, where they still apply the old Offence Against the Person Act, a 21 year old woman was given a three month suspended sentence because she had bought drugs online which induced a miscarriage. She hadn’t enough money to travel to the mainland and abortion is still illegal in Northern Ireland. While she was suffering this awful trauma her housemates called the police – I kid you not – and she was then subjected to an investigation which found her guilty of a serious crime. Many people in Ireland don’t know that we introduced a 14-year sentence when the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Bill was brought in. Actually less than one in 10 of us are aware that a woman who has an abortion could face a 14-year prison sentence. But I bet every single one of those 12 women who leave here each day to travel abroad for medical care they are denied here, do. They know damn well what the consequences are.The logic seems to be that if they do their “dirty work” in a different country it isn’t classed as a crime at home. But then we realised that we couldn’t jail everyone for travelling out of the country, so the “right to travel” as well as the “right to information” [about abortion] was decriminalised. Which was great, because it meant the customs lads didn’t have to confiscate every copy of Cosmopolitan that came into the country (with ads for Marie Stopes clinics in the back pages). But it’s still a crime to have an abortion in Ireland – unless your life, as opposed to your health, is at risk. This, despite the fact that two thirds of people living in this country want abortion to be decriminalised, according to a recent Red C poll commissioned by Amnesty Ireland. Asked whether the Irish Government should decriminalise abortion, 67% agreed and 25% disagreed. And 81% are in favour of significantly widening the grounds for legal abortion access in Ireland. Yet repealing the 8th amendment [which criminalises abortion in all cases except when the life of the mother is at risk] is not part of any of the main parties agendas as they discuss forming a government. And so currently, Amnesty Ireland – and a whole host of other people – are staging a series of protests outside Government Buildings. Every day the 12 women who leave the country to avoid a possible 14 year sentence are represented in a lunchtime vigil. The numbers participating are growing and the tone of the gathering is upbeat and positive. We know that we can’t be ignored forever. If we want to call ourselves a functioning democracy we will have to have a referendum soon on repealing the 8th amendment. It’s that simple. So, come on down and join us. Every day at 1pm. At Government Buildings. Bring your mates. Bring your Mammy. Bring your lunch. Or coffee. Or even cocktails if that’s what you’re into. We had balloons on Sunday. And chocolate cake. Maybe some local businesses would like to send us down tea and sandwiches, or coffee or, dammit okay, cocktails would be fine too. We’re not going away you know. Because if even Donald Trump realises that criminalising women for having much needed abortions is disgustingly inhumane, cruel and unjust, then why can’t we?
The Berlin-Irish pro choice solidarity group are holding a protest [details below] outside the British Embassy today, Tuesday at 5pm to voice anger at the suspended sentence handed down to a 21-yearold Northern Irish woman who miscarried after purchasing abortion pills online.
