Woman denied abortion dies in Galway.

[osarusan]

The death of a woman who was 17 weeks pregnant is the subject of two investigations at University Hospital Galway in the Republic of Ireland.
Savita Halappanavar's family said she asked several times for her pregnancy to be terminated because she had severe back pain and was miscarrying. Her family claimed it was refused because there was a foetal heartbeat. She died on 28 October. An autopsy carried out two days later found she had died from septicaemia. Ms Halappanavar, who was 31, was a dentist. Her husband, Praveen, told the Irish Times that medical staff said his wife could not have an abortion because Ireland was a Catholic country and the foetus was still alive.

She was apparently denied an abortion even though the doctors had already told her the foetus would not survive.

What's even more confusing is how the doctors couldn't come to the diagnosis that the situation represented a real risk to the life of the mother.

[Dodge]

What's even more confusing is how the doctors couldn't come to the diagnosis that the situation represented a real risk to the life of the mother.

I don't think thats the case. There's no legislation allowing the doctors to perform a termination even in the event of the mother's life being at risk. Doctors may have wanted to operate but felt they weren't allowed.

Thats the whole problem.

Awful case.

[Charlie Darwin]

I don't think thats the case. There's no legislation allowing the doctors to perform a termination even in the event of the mother's life being at risk. Doctors may have wanted to operate but felt they weren't allowed.

Thats the whole problem.

Awful case.
Exactly, doctors can perform an abortion if the mother's life is at risk but there are no guidelines under which they can operate so they end up being paralysed by indecision and the need to cover their asses. Like the failure to legislate for the X Case, it's just another instance of the horrific abdication of responsibility by successive governments in this country.

[Dodge]

Exactly, doctors can perform an abortion if the mother's life is at risk

To be clear, they still can't perform an abortion under any circumstance. The Supreme Court found that this is unconstitutional but no legislation has ever been introduced so its still illegal (if not unconstitutional)

[Charlie Darwin]

To be clear, they still can't perform an abortion under any circumstance. The Supreme Court found that this is unconstitutional but no legislation has ever been introduced so its still illegal (if not unconstitutional)
Well it's not legislated for but it's theoretically legal. As in, if the AG decided to prosecute it would be ruled unconstitutional.

[Dodge]

To be clear, they still can't perform an abortion under any circumstance. The Supreme Court found that this is unconstitutional but no legislation has ever been introduced so its still illegal (if not unconstitutional)

Just been told by a solicitor mate (in normal conversation, not like I wa slooking for legal advice on posts here...) that I was way off. Once the supreme court deemed it unconstitutional the law is effectively repealed.

The point about lack of legislation still stands

[shantykelly]

But is it not ultimately a medical judgement (and not a legal one) as to when the woman's life is at risk?

[pineapple stu]

I assume - and I'm not a legal guy - that the point is that the law is considering the right of the unborn child as well as the mother. So to terminate the pregnancy would be murder in the law's eyes. You're damned if you do and you're damned if you don't.

Is it normal for things found unconstitutional to remain unlegislated?

And it does seem to bring us back to osarusan's initial question as to how it wasn't determined that there was a threat to the mother's life.

[Dodge]

Is it normal for things found unconstitutional to remain unlegislated?
Well part 1 of the 1992 referendum attempted to over turn the Supreme Court's ruling in the X case and was rejected. So they did attempt to legislate, but against the wishes of the people. They haven't attempted anything since (shamfully)


And it does seem to bring us back to osarusan's initial question as to how it wasn't determined that there was a threat to the mother's life.
I'm not sure thats the issue. it seems the presence of a foetal heartbeat is what stopped the doctor acting (from reports etc etc) not whether her life was at risk

[pineapple stu]

So the doctors acted on the basis that the operation was simply illegal while the foetus had any bit of life - which technically it is - even though the law has been ruled unconstitutional in the event of a threat to the mother's life, even if that's never been proven to be the legal position in a court of law?

And so if a law had been drafted at the time of the referendum saying that abortion was legal only in the case of a threat to the mother's life, this would never have happened?

[Dodge]

There's no doubt that if clear legislation existed, there'd be less hesitation in this Doctor's action.

[osarusan]

Minister for Health Dr James Reilly said it would be an extremely serious matter if there had been any hesitation in relation to Ms Halappanavar because of moral or religious beliefs. However, he said he had no evidence of the application of a Catholic bias in relation to treatment and he warned against prejudging the circumstances surrounding the death.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1115/1224326607277.html

[Lionel Ritchie]

Spontaneous protests in Dublin and Cork yesterday. I know there's one planned for Limerick at the weekend. A little concerned that we're not far off one of them turning messy as a planned one is more likely to attract a counter demonstration and emotions, normally high on this issue anyway, are pretty much white hot.

Somewhat cross-posting with a respectful nod to my 'The Gathering' thread here's an excellent use for those postcards we've all been getting lately. Either side can use them of course. https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/c38.0.403.403/p403x403/75941_386381041436950_388798288_n.jpg

[pineapple stu]

To be clear, they still can't perform an abortion under any circumstance.
For what it's worth, Medical Council guidelines (http://www.medicalcouncil.ie/Public-Information/Professional-Conduct-Ethics/The-Guide-to-Professional-Conduct-and-Ethics-for-Registered-Medical-Practitioners.pdf) (pdf link) state that -


Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother
So I don't think it's necessarily correct to say they can't perform an abortion under any circumstance. The linked document is quite clear as to when you can and can't perform an abortion. At an individual level anyway, I'd say Medical Council guidelines would cover you personally in court, and conversely, the doctor may now have to answer as to why he didn't follow Medical Council guidelines.

I don't know the legal status of the guidelines, but I'd be fairly sure that a doctor would at least have a better understanding of that issue than me.

On that basis, a lot of the arguments about how Ireland is such a backward country that stuff like this could happen isn't actually true at all. This seems simply to be a bad medical call.

[Dodge]

So I don't think it's necessarily correct to say they can't perform an abortion under any circumstance.

I clarified that in the next post


On that basis, a lot of the arguments about how Ireland is such a backward country that stuff like this could happen isn't actually true at all. This seems simply to be a bad medical call.
Not really. its still 20 years since the X case and there's been no legislation to clarify thigns. mainly due to church influence in the view of most.

[pineapple stu]

I clarified that in the next post
You did, yeah, sorry. Just wanted to post the exact guidelines (whatever that word means) to help clarify (if that's the word...) the position though.

[geysir]

When it comes to this case, the constitution

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother,

has a clear expressed authority.
The diagnosis was already made regards the child, the child would not survive. The mother's life was in danger and her condition was deteriorating.
The symptoms that she was experiencing made it plain that her life was in danger.
If the baby had a chance of life, then no doubt that danger to the mother would have to measured more accurately, possibly to the nth degree considering the grey area of abortion/threat to mother's life.
In this case the baby had no chance of life, the medics only had to acknowledge the woman's symptoms, that her life was in danger, she was not responding to current treatment and her condition was worsening.
No one can say with certainty that she would have survived the sepsis condition had the abortion been performed but it would have been regarded as medically the best practice to do.
It has all the appearance of an appalling example of medical mistreatment.

[DannyInvincible]

The diagnosis was already made regards the child, the child would not survive.

Is that of legal relevance so long as a heartbeat is still evident in the foetus? There's been a suggestion, and I'm not sure of its accuracy with regard to Irish law, that to have performed an abortion would have amounted to a criminal act because the foetus was still alive even if its fate had already been established by the doctors. Can that be correct? That would seemingly constitute an absolute ban on abortion, unless where the mother might have already miscarried, but that would make any provision for induced abortion kind of pointless, surely?

Similarly, just because a being's fate might be known or predictable to a reasonable degree of certainty outside of the womb - that he or she may die, say, tomorrow - doesn't permit the performance of euthanasia. That would still amount to murder under the law. Once again, I'm not sure how relevant that is exactly but, from what I've been reading/hearing, the right to life of a foetus appears to be equated to the right to life of the mother/beings living outside of the womb under Irish law.

[geysir]

Is that of legal relevance so long as a heartbeat is still evident in the foetus? There's been a suggestion, and I'm not sure of its accuracy with regard to Irish law, that to have performed an abortion would have amounted to a criminal act because the foetus was still alive even if its fate had already been established by the doctors. Can that be correct? That would seemingly constitute an absolute ban on abortion, unless where the mother might have already miscarried, but that would make any provision for induced abortion kind of pointless, surely?

Surely not.
You do realize that a woman has a (conditional) right to an abortion under the constitution?
It has already been accepted by the Supreme Court that ' a woman had a right to an abortion under Article 40.3.3 if there was "a real and substantial risk" to her life. This right did not exist if there was a risk to her health but not her life; however it did exist if the risk was the possibility of suicide.
That ruling was made in a case where the unborn child was presumably healthy or the health of the unborn child was not an an issue.
The real and substantial risk to that woman's life was determined by a diagnosis/prognosis.
Medical diagnosis is accepted as valid evidence for acceptance by the Supreme Court.

If one only evaluated the risk to the woman's life in this current case, at the very least there was risk to her life, I can't quantify how real and substantial it was. Medical best practice tells you that according to the symptoms, lack of response to treatment and deteriorating condition, the risk was real and substantial. Aborting the unborn child is the medical procedure to do in that case.
And of relevance to the constitution is the important detail, that there was a medical diagnosis that the unborn child would not survive.

[DannyInvincible]

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.

[pineapple stu]

Just for another way to look at this - here's (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html) 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 (http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=49228&start=90) is an interesting insight into the matter as well; he seems to have first-hand experience from both sides of the camp.

[geysir]

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.

[DannyInvincible]

Just for another way to look at this - here's (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html) 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.

[geysir]

Just for another way to look at this - here's (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2223rank.html) 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 (http://www.medicalindependent.ie/page.aspx?title=maternal_death_–_into_the_great_un known)

'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 (http://www.thepropertypin.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=49228&start=90) 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.

[DannyInvincible]

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?

[osarusan]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/15/irish-abortion-law-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.


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?

[pineapple stu]

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.

[DannyInvincible]

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.

[geysir]

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.

[geysir]

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.

[White Horse]

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.

[dahamsta]

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.

[geysir]

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.

[DannyInvincible]

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?

[geysir]

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.

[White Horse]

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.

[Lim till i die]

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. :)

[osarusan]

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.

[geysir]

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.

[DannyInvincible]

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.

[DannyInvincible]

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.

Apparently, although it has been argued that the shipping of our maternity problems abroad - that referring to the "safety net" provided by the close proximity of Britian, where abortion is, of course, legal - has resulted in unreliable statistics.

[Lim till i die]

What has India got to do with what happened in Galway.

My bit about India was to do with the preceding paragraph where I'd given out about the self loathing Oirish.

The paragraph it was a direct follow on from.

The paragraph you left out in a (massively successful) attempt to work yourself up into an indignant lather.


never mind your oversimplified impressions of India society?

150th in infant mortality.

Just ahead of Zimbabwe and Yemen, just behind Burma and Bangladesh.

129th in Maternal Mortality Rate.

Tucked between Namibia and Djibouti.

Spare me.


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'?

Again working yourself up into a lather.

If a serious investigation into the circumstances is needed (and nowhere did I state an investigation into the circumstances wasn't needed) then surely it should be conducted in a manner which the elected government and their experts see fit and not at the whim of Mr. Halappanavar??

To me this seems like common sense. Yet again, you twist my comments to try and beat me with the racialist stick.

Read what is written.

There's no need to put an imaginary slant on it that suit you.

It is what it is.


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

Nowhere did I question whether or not there should be an investigation.

The main thrust of my post was against the "REFERDUM NOW" v "NO REFERENDUM" nonsense we've been subjected to by the two extremes on the issue.

They are of course talking nonsense precisely because there hasn't been an investigation yet.

Again, try just reading what's written.



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.

In fairness I also threw the pro life wackjobs into a similar basket. (A throwing that you don't seem as put out by :p)

You, like me, despite having a different opinion, are with the vast majority of people in the fairly sensible middle ground.

The point I was making is that in these kind of debates you don't get sensible, middle ground debate.

You get two sets of equally dislikable, equally unpopular, extremists mooing at one another.

[dahamsta]

The HSE/Gov.ie handling of this has been a complete clusterfeck. I've seen their incompetence on several occasions but never such an amount of it compressed into one giant ball of snot.

Everyone knows abortion is a killer issue - pardon the pun - which is why none of them ever have the balls to actually do anything about it, but if they continue as they are it'll be suicide.

The worst thing is, if they do fall apart, we'll have FF back again!

[Charlie Darwin]

Jaysus, I'd forgotten we'd got rid of FF. Funny how things slip your mind.

[DannyInvincible]

In fairness I also threw the pro life wackjobs into a similar basket. (A throwing that you don't seem as put out by :p)

I did mention both of your pre-configured pigeonholes. ;)


The point I was making is that in these kind of debates you don't get sensible, middle ground debate.

You get two sets of equally dislikable, equally unpopular, extremists mooing at one another.

There is a lot of guff being spouted, to be honest, which, I admit, is unnerving considering nobody is, as of yet, certain of the facts. But when did the sensible middle-ground ever make the headlines?

[dahamsta]

Jaysus, I'd forgotten we'd got rid of FF. Funny how things slip your mind.

That's how they get ya. Ratings up too. People have very short memories. The Oirish as a people appear to have collective Attention Deficit Disorder.

[geysir]

If a serious investigation into the circumstances is needed (and nowhere did I state an investigation into the circumstances wasn't needed) then surely it should be conducted in a manner which the elected government and their experts see fit and not at the whim of Mr. Halappanavar??
To me this seems like common sense. Yet again, you twist my comments to try and beat me with the racialist stick.
Read what is written.

Perhaps it makes common sense to you,
Lets have a look at what you wrote, after you gave out about the "self loathing Oirish".

"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."

Personally I agreed with Halappanavar's reservations at the time, his solicitor also gave good reasons and as it turned out his reservations were accurate and supported by many people.
Imo, telling him nicely to shut up, stop interfering and worry about saving children back in his homeland, is patronizing and condescending drivel.


In fairness I also threw the pro life wackjobs into a similar basket. (A throwing that you don't seem as put out by :p)
You, like me, despite having a different opinion, are with the vast majority of people in the fairly sensible middle ground.
The point I was making is that in these kind of debates you don't get sensible, middle ground debate.
You get two sets of equally dislikable, equally unpopular, extremists mooing at one another.
I'm not in the least interested to comment on those opinions of yours or use extreme descriptions like 'pro life wackjobs',
except to highlight the obvious contradiction in your self-congratulatory tone, alluding/implying that the manner of how you express yourself is a part of a "sensible, middle ground debate".

[DannyInvincible]

Imo, telling him nicely to shut up, stop interfering and worry about saving children back in his homeland, is patronizing and condescending drivel.

Indeed, what does the state of maternity care in India have to do with the death of Savita Halappanavar? :/

Anyhow, it transpires that her repeated requests for a termination are now missing from her medical notes: http://www.independent.ie/national-news/reilly-denies-savita-probe-shambles-as-notes-on-requests-for-a-termination-missing-3303063.html

Can we assume that requests were definitely made, or does the absence of notes now raise doubt over such a presumption made on good faith? Either there were no requests or there were requests and doctors either neglected their medical duty of care (or is the taking of notes/recording of patient requests a duty?) and failed to record them or they have been removed from the notes in a cover-up attempt. Nevertheless, if a probability could have been established that Mrs. Halappanavar's condition was posing a real and substantial risk to her life, whether she had requested a termination or not would surely be inconsequential and of no substantive difference.

[dahamsta]

They probably learned from all the builders to forget to take notes, plausible deniability an' all that. I just hope that if the requests are genuine, the father had the forethought to note dates and times himself. I think I would given that the denials, but who can say what mindset they'd be in in that situation.

I discussed this with the wife, who's currently pregnant. I told her that I'd have found a way to do it myself. She agreed. But again, I can only imagine what the father was going through.

I'll tell you this though: if someone told me I couldn't have the foetus terminated because Ireland is a catholic country, they'd be thanking their lucky stars they were in a hospital, because I'd break their face right there and then.

[BonnieShels]

[QUOTE=dahamsta;1645648]clusterfeck[QUOTE]

Are even you, the owner of the site not allowed a "u" in this instance?

One of my all-time favourite words. God bless it's use.