Beecher Networks - Web Development, Hosting & Domains
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 185

Thread: Woman denied abortion dies in Galway.

  1. #21
    Biased against YOUR club pineapple stu's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    In the long grass
    Posts
    38,099
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,663
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4,891
    Thanked in
    3,195 Posts
    Just for another way to look at this - here's a list of maternal death rates by country. I'm going to assume it's accurate; if anyone has any better figures, fire ahead.

    It's interesting that Ireland's death rate is one of the lowest in the world. It's half of Britain's, for example. I don't know how often a case like this one occurs, but if it's in any way regular - and I think sepsis is now the leading cause of maternal death in the developed world - it's interesting that Ireland ranks so well. So either the figures are fudged or abortions are performed when the mother's life is in danger.

    Edit - also, Terra Incognita's post on this forum is an interesting insight into the matter as well; he seems to have first-hand experience from both sides of the camp.
    Last edited by pineapple stu; 18/11/2012 at 12:16 PM.

  2. #22
    Capped Player
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,726
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,794
    Thanked in
    1,912 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post
    Indeed, I'm aware of the 'X' Case, and its findings do conflict with the proposition I've put forward, so why has it been argued that the presence of a heartbeat in the foetus might have posed legal complications?

    Are you implying Irish law on the matter should have been sufficient as it is then to protect the life of the mother in the case at hand? That the death of Savita Halappanavar was most likely as a result of medical negligence rather than due to a lacking or uncertain legal framework to cover the situation? Writing in hindsight, it's quite obvious that the pregnancy posed a "real and substantial risk" to the mother's life; whether that was discernible prior to her death appears to be the crux of the issue in this case then.
    The 'real and substantial risk' is only one aspect, the other is the impending death of her unborn child.
    Just because the Supreme Court did not have the latter issue to deal with in the X case, does not mean we can ignore what the constitution says re mother and child - rights to life.
    On the former.
    As I have outlined there was a risk to the mother's life, a medical diagnosis of such a risk, determining the seriousness of the risk would have been sufficient to satisfy even the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.
    From a perusal of the information relating to the mother's condition, her's was a classic case of a rapidly developing sepsis (a serious life threatening condition), in a pregnant woman with a chronic problematic pregnancy /miscarriage. For some reason the medical staff discounted established medical best practice in such a case.
    It would be an absolutely bigger scandal if they chose to ignore medical best practice (ignoring the symptoms of the women's deteriorating condition) because they did not rate that it was appropriate in such a patient. Therefore I can only conclude that they chose not to intervene because of some level of legal ignorance on their part. One can only speculate about religious or other issues.
    Last edited by geysir; 18/11/2012 at 1:08 PM.

  3. #23
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple stu View Post
    Just for another way to look at this - here's a list of maternal death rates by country. I'm going to assume it's accurate; if anyone has any better figures, fire ahead.

    It's interesting that Ireland's death rate is one of the lowest in the world. It's half of Britain's, for example. I don't know how often a case like this one occurs, but if it's in any way regular - and I think sepsis is now the leading cause of maternal death in the developed world - it's interesting that Ireland ranks so well. So either the figures are fudged or abortions are performed when the mother's life is in danger.
    It's been argued by the pro-choice camp that the fact pregnant Irish woman suffering complications have the "safety valve" of the healthcare system in the Britain, where abortion is legal, within such close proximity misrepresents the reality in Ireland. In essence, if we weren't able to "ship the problem" abroad, our maternal fatality rate might be significantly higher. It makes sense and sounds convincing on the face of it, but I'm not sure if the statistics support such a contention, or if the stats are freely available anywhere.

  4. #24
    Capped Player
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,726
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,794
    Thanked in
    1,912 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple stu View Post
    Just for another way to look at this - here's a list of maternal death rates by country. I'm going to assume it's accurate; if anyone has any better figures, fire ahead.

    It's interesting that Ireland's death rate is one of the lowest in the world. It's half of Britain's, for example. I don't know how often a case like this one occurs, but if it's in any way regular - and I think sepsis is now the leading cause of maternal death in the developed world - it's interesting that Ireland ranks so well. So either the figures are fudged or abortions are performed when the mother's life is in danger.
    There are opinions that the maternal death rates stats for Ireland are (much?) greater than what's reported in the 'fact' books
    Into the great unknown

    'While Ireland appears to have one of the lowest maternal death rates in the world, experts are concerned that the real figures are vastly under-reported. June Shannon investigates
    Thanks to advances in obstetric care, maternal deaths are still a relatively rare event in Ireland.
    However they do occur and despite the fact that official reports have long heralded Ireland as one of the safest places in the world to have a baby, at one maternal death in 100,000 live births, experts believe that the true number may be as much as 10 times that figure.'



    Edit - also, Terra Incognita's post on this forum is an interesting insight into the matter as well; he seems to have first-hand experience from both sides of the camp.
    That site is restricted to members.

  5. #25
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by geysir View Post
    The 'real and substantial risk' is only one aspect, the other is the impending death of her unborn child.
    Just because the Supreme Court did not have the latter issue to deal with in the X case, does not mean we can ignore what the constitution says re mother and child - rights to life.
    On the former.
    As I have outlined there was a risk to the mother's life, a medical diagnosis of such a risk, determining the seriousness of the risk would have been sufficient to satisfy even the scrutiny of the Supreme Court.
    From a perusal of the information relating to the mother's condition, her's was a classic case of a rapidly developing sepsis (a serious life threatening condition), in a pregnant woman with a chronic problematic pregnancy /miscarriage. For some reason the medical staff discounted established medical best practice in such a case.
    It would be an absolutely bigger scandal if they chose to ignore medical best practice (ignoring the symptoms of the women's deteriorating condition) because they did not rate that it was appropriate in such a patient. Therefore I can only conclude that they chose not to intervene because of some level of legal ignorance on their part. One can only speculate about religious or other issues.
    So, the real issue here is most likely medical negligence (without wanting to speculate on the facts too much) rather than a need to overhaul the law for cases when the mother's life is in danger? As tragic as the case is, does that mean much of the hoo-ha is much ado about nothing in the sense that the Irish legal framework appears to be bearing much of the criticism from within Ireland and internationally for allegedly having stifled the doctors' opportunity to perform an abortion?

  6. #26
    International Prospect osarusan's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    7,908
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,206
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,787
    Thanked in
    999 Posts
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...aw-blame-death

    Dr Gerry Whyte, an associate professor at Trinity College Dublin, claimed that the law as it stands provides for abortions, but only in cases where it is deemed necessary to save the life of a mother. He said: "The legal principle is clear, in other words, if there was a real and substantial risk to the mother's life and where termination of the pregnancy was necessary to avoid that risk, then she would have been entitled to an abortion.

    "Now clearly the case raises issues that I couldn't comment on about medical judgments, about whether or not termination of the pregnancy would have saved her life or not."
    The statement above makes me think that the condition (or inevitable fate) on the foetus is irrelevant when deciding whether or not there is a real risk to the life of the pregnant woman - in that if an abortion is the only way to avoid the real risk to the woman from being realised, then it is legal to carry one out, even if the foetus is healthy.

    If this is the case, then, at the point when doctors came to the conclusion that there was a real risk to the life of the pregnant woman, the existence of a foetal heartbeat shouldn't have been legally relevant (if those two things ever overlapped).

    But perhaps I've been mistaken in my understanding of the quote above, and other similar quotes.

    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post
    So, the real issue here is most likely medical negligence (without wanting to speculate on the facts too much) rather than a need to overhaul the law for cases when the mother's life is in danger?
    If I remember correctly, after being told that the foetus would eventually be miscarried (because of the extent of the dilation of the cervix and the leaking of amniotic fluid), Savita Halappanavar (apparently) asked more than once over two or three days that that an abortion be carried out. This was (apparently) refused over the course of two or three days. Was this because of the existence of a foetal heartbeat, or because the woman's condition did not, at those times when she asked for an abortion, constitute a real risk to her life?

    Either way, if Ireland's abortion laws did not limit abortion to cases where there is a real risk to the life of the pregnant woman, would she not have been able to get the abortion she had requested at a much earlier time?
    Last edited by osarusan; 18/11/2012 at 2:50 PM.

  7. #27
    Biased against YOUR club pineapple stu's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    In the long grass
    Posts
    38,099
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,663
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4,891
    Thanked in
    3,195 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by geysir View Post
    That site is restricted to members.
    Didn't realise that. For what it's worth, here's the post -

    I've been resisting posting on this thread as its too close to the bone.

    we have three children but we have been pregnant more than three times.

    I work in this area and today participated in two "legal" abortions and I've also helped with some legally dubios abortions in this state so I probably have more experience than most posters here to comment.

    All the facts in this case are not out yet. I'd be surprised (and ashamed) if there was any medical negligence in this case. Irish law is clear, one of the few areas where the law rather that professional standards dictate care is in this area. The only thing that is clear is that if you perform an illegal abortion the doctor is guilty of a criminal offence and I think the term is 20 years in prison (happy to be corrected on this). What is not clear is when an abortion can me performed.

    A 31 year old female has an risk of dying of about 0.001% (guess)
    A 31 year old Pregnant female has a risk of dring of about 0.01% (guess)
    A 31 year old Pregnant female at 17 weeks with ruptured membranes has risk of dying of about a 0.05% (guess)
    A 31 year old miscarrying female at 17 weeks with a temperature has a risk of dying of about 0.1% (guess)
    A 31 year old miscarrying female at 17 weeks with a temperature and blood pressure problems has about a 0.5% risk of dying (guess)
    A 31 year old septic female on a ventilator in ICU has about a risk of dying of about 40% (guess)

    Where was the immediate risk to the life of the mother? when was it too late to avert the inevitable? the law is clear if you abort the fetus to save the mother where there is no clear threat you are at risk of offenes against the state and are facing 20 years in prison and striking off the medical register.

    Michael Martin (former minister for health) was calling for legislation for clarity on abortion legislation when a mothers life eis at risk. this is all bull**** at the peripheries. Abortions occur daily in Ireland for this there is no issue. its when there is no clear risk to the mother but an abortion is still indicated there is a problem*. Its clear in this case that if this girl had an ERPC (clearance of the uterus) she would probably be alive today. She was prevented from this medical procedure either by the law in Ireland, the reluctance of the Dr due to the law in Ireland or the religious beliefs of the Dr in Ireland. A colleague informs me that She has regularly performed abortions in Galway so it its more likely that the law and lack of clarity in legislation save for the prison term for the Dr delayed what only in retrospect was life saving treatment for this woman.

    The Government is more concerned with introducing Blasphemy legislation that women's rights. Despite the recent constitutional referendum this Gov and successive Irish Gov's do not care about women or children's rights. The three maternity hospitals (one in particular) are bursting at the seams, women get to deliver babies in shared delivery rooms (just like the 3rd world) our hospital was recently refused a new hospital because the buildings we had allocated were taken by the IDA for multinationals offices. Make no mistake that status of women and children is extremely low in Ireland and particularly in "Catholic" Ireland as it always has been.

    If any journalists want to pm me I'd be delighted to chat

    * There are a few conditions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patau_syndrome, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwards_syndrome,

    None of these women are allowed an abortion under Irish law. All of these conditions are lethal to the fetus. There is no possibility of a viable baby out of this but all Irish women are forced to carry these babies to term whether they want to or not. this is an affront to human rights and a disgrace.

    In Ireland we do not take into consideration the view or opinion of the mother in any way.

  8. Thanks From:


  9. #28
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by osarusan View Post
    If I remember correctly, after being told that the foetus would eventually be miscarried (because of the extent of the dilation of the cervix and the leaking of amniotic fluid), Savita Halappanavar (apparently) asked more than once over two or three days that that an abortion be carried out. This was (apparently) refused over the course of two or three days. Was this because of the existence of a foetal heartbeat, or because the woman's condition did not, at those times when she asked for an abortion, constitute a real risk to her life?

    Either way, if Ireland's abortion laws did not limit abortion to cases where there is a real risk to the life of the pregnant woman, would she not have been able to get the abortion she had requested at a much earlier time?
    That's a good point. So, perhaps the legal provision from the 'X' Case was too stringent or limited in order to save the life of Savita Halappanavar despite her doctors applying the "real and substantial risk" test in their practice and treatment of her? Once again, we'll have to wait until the facts of the case emerge until we can know for sure whether it was medical negligence or legal stringency/uncertainty that was to blame.

  10. #29
    Capped Player
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,726
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,794
    Thanked in
    1,912 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post
    So, the real issue here is most likely medical negligence (without wanting to speculate on the facts too much) rather than a need to overhaul the law for cases when the mother's life is in danger? As tragic as the case is, does that mean much of the hoo-ha is much ado about nothing in the sense that the Irish legal framework appears to be bearing much of the criticism from within Ireland and internationally for allegedly having stifled the doctors' opportunity to perform an abortion?
    It should be enough for the law that medical best practice is accepted as the best procedure to follow. It was enough for the Supreme Court.
    I honestly don't believe there could have been a sliver of doubt in this Galway case, because the unborn baby who was diagnosed (Supreme Court standard of proof) as dying, removed any doubt.
    I had a read of Terra Incognita's post that Stu copy and pasted and he seems convinced that there is a need for a legal framework.
    I suppose no medic should have to be an expert on constitutional law before carrying out what they truly believe to be a life saving procedure and no medic should be able to hide behind an incorrect interpretation of the constitution. The Galway incident would support TI's opinion.

  11. #30
    Capped Player
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,726
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,794
    Thanked in
    1,912 Posts
    I was having a look again at some parts of the Supreme Court judgement in the 'X Case'

    "if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health of the mother, which can only be avoided by the termination of her pregnancy, such termination is permissible"

    There only has to be established a probability of a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother, before abortion is permissible.
    The word 'probability' gives 100% legal permission to the application of bog-standard 'medical best practice'.


    Possibly there needs to be added at least one legal clarification for a tiny minority of dysfunctional medics (if it isn't already glaringly obvious), is that when the life of the unborn in all probability will not survive, then there only needs to be established a risk to the life of the mother before abortion is permissible. Real and substantial doesn't need to be established.
    'Medical best practice' will usually await the natural abortion/miscarriage in such a case, but if there are issues they will intervene.

    Imo, it is bizarre, but perhaps necessary, that the law has to give clarification on the application of medical best practice.

  12. #31
    Seasoned Pro White Horse's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dundalk
    Posts
    3,714
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    251
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,056
    Thanked in
    555 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by geysir View Post
    Imo, it is bizarre, but perhaps necessary, that the law has to give clarification on the application of medical best practice.
    I heard a professor of obstetrics argue that there was no legal barrier to ending the pregancy in the Galway case.

    Why it wasn't done and whether it would have made a difference is a matter for the inquiry to deal with.

    There is too much agenda laden speculation in the media. People are twisting the limited facts available to suit their agendas.

  13. #32
    Director dahamsta's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2001
    Location
    The Internet
    Posts
    13,975
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    481
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    805
    Thanked in
    500 Posts
    It's just typical of Oirish politicians to start drafting and lobbying for legislation before an investigation has even started. Going by the facts that are available thus far, and they're thin on the ground, the doctor would have been completely justified in aborting the foetus, and legislation isn't needed. In this case.

    IMHO legislation IS needed since we're just exporting the problem at the moment and that isn't a mature way of dealing with the problem, but that's a whole other thread.

  14. #33
    Capped Player
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,726
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,794
    Thanked in
    1,912 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by White Horse View Post
    I heard a professor of obstetrics argue that there was no legal barrier to ending the pregancy in the Galway case.

    Why it wasn't done and whether it would have made a difference is a matter for the inquiry to deal with.

    There is too much agenda laden speculation in the media. People are twisting the limited facts available to suit their agendas.
    For sure some people are twisting the facts but others who should know better and have a responsibility to be better are just misquoting or carelessly minimalist about what Justice Finlay has ruled upon in the X case.
    In that I especially include Vincent Browne who claimed on the TV3 debate tonight, that the Supreme Court ruled that a woman's life had to be in significant danger before a termination could be carried out.
    Not so Mr Browne, the Supreme Court ruled that there had to be just a probability of a real and substantial risk to a woman's life and they accepted a medical diagnosis of that probability as proof. Personally I find this very sloppy by a supposed experienced professional journalist discussing such a sensitive issue.

  15. #34
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    What is "just a probability of a real and substantial risk" exactly? A 50 per cent chance or more of there being a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother, is it?

  16. #35
    Capped Player
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,726
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,794
    Thanked in
    1,912 Posts
    Or what is regarded as a real or substantial risk?
    There are a number of associated life threatening situations e.g. suicidal symptoms, infections or say ovarian tumours - malignant neoplasms.
    A probability is whatever a medical diagnosis of a probability is, according to medical practice.
    I presume that the condition has to exist in the first place, test result show the presence of the disease, the disease is life threatening and the chances are that it will get worse with non-termination.
    The Supreme Court accepted a medical diagnosis of a probability.
    A general example - a woman had a medical condition (a malignant tumour) which needed urgent treatment/attention, otherwise she was at serious risk of dying. In order to carry out that treatment we had to terminate her pregnancy.

  17. #36
    Seasoned Pro White Horse's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dundalk
    Posts
    3,714
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    251
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,056
    Thanked in
    555 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DannyInvincible View Post
    What is "just a probability of a real and substantial risk" exactly? A 50 per cent chance or more of there being a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother, is it?
    Medicine is about opinions, and opinions are subjective.

    The decision as to whether there is a "real and substantial risk" cannot be made in legislation. It can only be made by a doctor with the best information at the time.

    Doctors are seeking the protection of the law when they made honest assessments.

    The issue regarding suicide risk is quite another thing. To many people, that is the gateway to abortion on demand.

  18. #37
    Banned Lim till i die's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Limerick
    Posts
    8,156
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    114
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,385
    Thanked in
    644 Posts
    The amount of absolute nonsense surrounding this incident is driving me nuts.

    Am I correct in saying that there is absolutely no proof that the abort/can't abort issue played any role in the womans death??

    Am I correct in saying that sepsis is the number one cause of death for expectant mothers in the UK??

    I'm not even being smart in asking these questions, it's just so hard to get any facts amidst all the absolute AR$E that has been spouted around this "issue" in the last few days.

    A battle between the inedible and the unpalatable if ever there was one.

    In one camp you have the hand wringing hipster, liberal, feminist, "I don't want to talk about the real world I've got my beliefs and they are right", lefty bell end brigade trying to push their own, deeply unpopular among the plain people of Ireland, agenda (which make no mistake is abortion on demand).

    Then in the other camp you have the wacko Catholic,, De Valera was great, four green fields, the country is shagged since they took it off the priests, Youth Defense brigade.

    As a (like the vast majority of people I know) pro lifer except in certain specific circumstances (rape, incest, a panel of experts ruling that the child would suffer terribly outside the womb (I'm sure there are ways of quantifying this before anyone pipes up!)) I find myself shuddering a little at the thought of being somewhat on the latters "side". Make no mistake, there is something very mcuh of the night about young Ronan Mullen.

    However what I find just as objectionable is unmandated liberal types pontificating from on high about the issue because they are our betters. When I saw that absolute cretin Backic had climbed down from her ivory tower to push her right on, femifacist agenda on Vincent Browne tonight, I actually kicked my own face half to death.

    And don't even get me started on the back drop to this whole disgusting farce. The "leader" of our country in the Dail today doffing his hat. Self flaggetting editorial after self flaggetting editorial. What kind of wierd, sick, twisted post colonial hang up do the Oirish have that they feel the need to be constantly so concerned about what everyone else thinks of them. The cringeworthy carnival of self loathing that has gone on in the last week is merely a natural follow on from "The best fans in de wurld" rubbish you get after every football tournament we make a show of ourselves at.

    Remember now that we have been doffing the cap to India. Taking flak from India. A country that has a nuclear programme but where children die in the street like dogs.

    And now Mr. Halappanavar isn't happy with the make up of the inquiry team?! He should be politely told that although we are obviously very sorry for his tragice loss he needs to take a step back now and if he has indeed been suddenly afflicted with a huge desire to ensure that the mothers and babies of the world are correctly cared for he could begin his mission at lot closer to home.

    What's needed at a time like this is common sense.

    Instead we have two points of view which are abhorrent to the majority of ordinary, decent, Irish people, shrieking at one another from opposite ends of the spectrum with a weak as water government in the middle afraid to do anything lest they offend mother church or mother liberal meeja.

    Plus ca change.

    Also while I'm here that useless, snidey, little poet above in the Park throwing his two cents where tisn't wanted. I look forward with baited breath to the day when Michael Twee has anything to say about Labours failed election promises or the crippling cut backs being made to services. If only we could make these things trendy.

    Anyway, rant over, off to bed, writers block is a terrible thing.
    Last edited by Lim till i die; 22/11/2012 at 3:18 AM.

  19. #38
    International Prospect osarusan's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    7,908
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,206
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,787
    Thanked in
    999 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Lim till i die View Post

    Am I correct in saying that there is absolutely no proof that the abort/can't abort issue played any role in the womans death??

    Am I correct in saying that sepsis is the number one cause of death for expectant mothers in the UK??
    Bit too soon to ask for proof, surely, as the investigation to determine reasons/responsibility is still in its infancy.

    I think the post I wrote earlier still contains valid questions:

    If I remember correctly, after being told that the foetus would eventually be miscarried (because of the extent of the dilation of the cervix and the leaking of amniotic fluid), Savita Halappanavar (apparently) asked more than once over two or three days that that an abortion be carried out. This was (apparently) refused over the course of two or three days. Was this because of the existence of a foetal heartbeat, or because the woman's condition did not, at those times when she asked for an abortion, constitute a real risk to her life?

    Either way, if Ireland's abortion laws did not limit abortion to cases where there is a real risk to the life of the pregnant woman, would she not have been able to get the abortion she had requested at a much earlier time?
    If it is true that, after being told her foetus would miscarry, she repeatedly asked for a termination (or she asked for labour to be induced) and was repeatedly refused, it is hard for me to imagine any doctor being able to explain this in a way* that doesn't indicate that the abortion laws were an influence.

    EDIT: Sheer incompetence is a possibility I suppose, but would kind of contradict statistics showing Ireland is an unusually safe place to have a baby.
    Last edited by osarusan; 22/11/2012 at 9:25 AM.

  20. Thanks From:


  21. #39
    Capped Player
    Joined
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    15,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,726
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,794
    Thanked in
    1,912 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Lim till i die View Post
    Remember now that we have been doffing the cap to India. Taking flak from India. A country that has a nuclear programme but where children die in the street like dogs.

    And now Mr. Halappanavar isn't happy with the make up of the inquiry team?! He should be politely told that although we are obviously very sorry for his tragice loss he needs to take a step back now and if he has indeed been suddenly afflicted with a huge desire to ensure that the mothers and babies of the world are correctly cared for he could begin his mission at lot closer to home.
    What has India got to do with what happened in Galway, never mind your oversimplified impressions of India society?
    So Mr. Halappanavar should shut up, remember where he came from and he should have no more expectation of a standard of medical treatment than some homeless kid in India gets?
    Why not tell him outright 'to go back home'?

    Am I correct in saying that there is absolutely no proof that the abort/can't abort issue played any role in the womans death??
    Where does one determine an acceptable standard of proof?
    There is evidence and set of circumstances to investigate, an investigation into the medical practice used with this woman and one part is to find out the reasons for decisions taken.
    The abortion laws exist and they are an issue.

  22. Thanks From:


  23. #40
    Capped Player DannyInvincible's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    11,524
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    3,404
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3,738
    Thanked in
    2,284 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Lim till i die View Post
    Am I correct in saying that there is absolutely no proof that the abort/can't abort issue played any role in the womans death??
    Indeed, no proof as of yet in the sense that she may have satisfied the 'X' Case test but medical negligence meant the probability of a real and substantial risk to her life was never established. Or perhaps the test was correctly applied by the doctors and they still felt the case law too stringent to go ahead with a termination.

    In one camp you have the hand wringing hipster, liberal, feminist, "I don't want to talk about the real world I've got my beliefs and they are right", lefty bell end brigade trying to push their own, deeply unpopular among the plain people of Ireland, agenda (which make no mistake is abortion on demand).
    I don't think it's fair to throw those who are pro-choice into a solitary "lefty bell-end" basket. You're oversimplifying the whole debate by slotting those with whom you disagree into your neatly pre-configured pigeonholes.

    Personally, I feel it should be a matter of personal autonomy for the mother. If it's anyone else's business at all, then perhaps the father should be consulted for his opinion also, assuming the pregnancy was not as a result of a criminal act enacted against the will of the mother. In saying that, I wouldn't try and force this opinion down anyone's throat or get sanctimonious about it. I just come at it from the basis of feeling that, as unfortunate a situation as it would be, I'd have no right whatsoever telling a woman what to do with her body in such an instance.

Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Irish abortion law may need to be changed.
    By osarusan in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 28/12/2010, 3:29 PM
  2. Irish abortion law challenged in European court
    By osarusan in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: 21/01/2010, 4:14 PM
  3. Abortion case.
    By osarusan in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 04/05/2007, 9:38 PM
  4. A mature debate on abortion
    By anto1208 in forum Current Affairs
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04/05/2007, 2:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •