Another abortion referendum?

[T McGibney]

Sepsis diagnosis failure aside, her pregnancy wasn't viable, she had ruptured membranes, a fully dialated cervix and had an elevated white bloodcell count.

She was told at the hospital that her pregnancy wasn't viable and should have been given an immediate termination.

I agree 100%.

The problem is that this case seems to have been dogged by incompetence and poor decision making at all levels, with extremely tragic consequences.

A notion is now being peddled that an abortion would have saved her. (This depends on the assumption that a medical team that couldn't properly organise blood tests or read charts would be capable of making an emergency decision to terminate, let alone perform the termination.) This may well be so. But in that case, the question must be asked of the doctors: why didn't you perform an abortion? If the child was more than likely unviable, then the issue of any infringement of their right to life was moot anyway.

The doctors' response to this uncomfortable question now seems to be to circle the wagons and pretend that the law somehow intimidated them into inaction. This is based apparently on a notion that a real & substantial risk to life equates to a 51% risk of death.

This is so disingenuous as to insult common sense.

If a patient presents with appendicitis symptoms, there is a real and substantial risk to their life if left untreated. In a developed health system, the statistical risk of death from appendicitis may only be 0.01% but it is real and substantial. Hence a doctor who fails to treat appendicitis will face consequences, and rightly so.

Why do these basic principles not apply to pregnant woman presenting with twin symptoms of infection and miscarriage?

 

[Purple]

The problem is that this case seems to have been dogged by incompetence and poor decision making at all levels, with extremely tragic consequences.

A notion is now being peddled that an abortion would have saved her. (This depends on the assumption that a medical team that couldn't properly organise blood tests or read charts would be capable of making an emergency decision to terminate, let alone perform the termination.) This may well be so. But in that case, the question must be asked of the doctors: why didn't you perform an abortion? If the child was more than likely unviable, then the issue of any infringement of their right to life was moot anyway.

The doctors' response to this uncomfortable question now seems to be to circle the wagons and pretend that the law somehow intimidated them into inaction. This is based apparently on a notion that a real & substantial risk to life equates to a 51% risk of death.

This is so disingenuous as to insult common sense.

If a patient presents with appendicitis symptoms, there is a real and substantial risk to their life if left untreated. In a developed health system, the statistical risk of death from appendicitis may only be 0.01% but it is real and substantial. Hence a doctor who fails to treat appendicitis will face consequences, and rightly so.

Why do these basic principles not apply to pregnant woman presenting with twin symptoms of infection and miscarriage?

Agree 100% with that.

 

[bullbars]

An atheist feminist who embraces the Catholic church's view that women are simply vessels to procreate? How unusual.

What sort of feminist or atheist supports the view that women should die in pain, because "this is a Catholic country"?

Not what ali stated or intimated but nice twist of words there, perhaps you can blame the church on toast landing butter side down next?

 

[bullbars]

Well appartently the 51% is wrong according to Boylan, for him you have to be at risk of dying of between 20% and 40%. A real and substantial risk that is. I wonder which pregnant women are entitled to a termination at 20% and which at 40%. Maybe it's 20% on Mondays rising to 40% on Fridays.

This is an ill informed and frankly disgusting remark. Devoid of conscious thought. It's akin to one labeling all pro-choice members of society as outright baby killers.

There's also the question of how the doctors measure this.
The Supreme Court never mentioned percentages. So that's not very helpful.

You do realise there is no digital read out on a womans forehead detailing what level she is currently at? Medical staff can only use their respective training and expertise to assess a patient based on how they are responding to treatment. If, hypothetically, they had proceeded with a termination but only afterward found that both patient and child would on probability have survived then we’d be sat here debating why doctors didn’t continue with treatment and then assess the response.

if I were pregnant today I wouldn't find 51% nor 40% nor 20% acceptable risk, maybe 1%, max 5%. But being merely the pregnant women in that situation my views count for naught.

Ridiculous contradiction. You do realise that by getting pregnant in the first place you have inherently put your risk level above the 1% to 5%? Pregnancy is a massive drain and stress on both body and mind; exposing it to numerous possible outcomes for both mother and child. To say that you want a zero risk pregnancy yet bore a number of offspring is illogical.
You have children who have put your life at risk, through no fault of their own; yet prior to birth if they risk your life at any stage, you’d be ready to abort.

If I had no kids, had been trying desparately for 10 years I might find 60% acceptable even if the doctors would only accept 20%. And in that situation the doctors would have to take my views into account.

No they don’t. They are bound to preserve the life of both mother and child.

And this counts for top class maternity care in a first world country.

You have a better system I assume. Feel free to set up the Bronte hospital of Unicorns and Rainbows where nothing wrong ever happens and hindsight is a perfect treatment plan.

 

[bullbars]

the doctors have decided that because of the law the risk has to be 'real and substantial' before they will intervene. That's the viewpoint coming from all the doctors. They are all on message on this. .

The doctors haven’t decided anything; they must follow the law on this. You seem confused about this.

In any other first world country they would have done the termination on the Monday. You wouldn't be waiting around for risk to increase, or indeed waiting for a risk at all.

Would they or is this speculation to suit your emotional outcry of righteousness?

Did anyone honestly believe that one Irish doctor would ever castigate another.

Yes, just like in any other profession, or does this not fit in with your conspiracy theory.

Why do you think Midwife Burke left out the Catholic country remark in her draft statement, and why do you think she was not on the list of witnesses, she who was so central to the care of Savita

Did she not leave it out as she thought it a comment made in general conversation? Also accepted by Mr. Hallapanvar as a general comment not a medical reason.

and why do you think another midwife is so ill she cannot attend the inquest.

Perhaps you know more- are you saying she is blatantly lying? Serious remark to make without any relevant reasoning.

It will be quite interesting to compare the 'draft' report, not the one that will be fixed after this, versus what we've heard in the inquest.

Heard at the inquest or (mis)read in the media?

 

[orka]

Ridiculous contradiction. You do realise that by getting pregnant in the first place you have inherently put your risk level above the 1% to 5%?

Really? Getting pregnant puts your risk (of dying) level above 1% to 5%? So we lose more than 1 woman per 100 pregnancies?

 

[bullbars]

Really? Getting pregnant puts your risk (of dying) level above 1% to 5%? So we lose more than 1 woman per 100 pregnancies?

Nope. What happens there is medical proffesionals can and do intervene to alleviate the risks and work around them. There are a plethora of conditions both physical and mental that go hand in hand with pregnancy. I was addressing Bronte's insistence on a zero risk pregnancy.

 

[orka]

You do realise that by getting pregnant in the first place you have inherently put your risk level above the 1% to 5%?

What happens there is medical proffesionals can and do intervene to alleviate the risks and work around them. There are a plethora of conditions both physical and mental that go hand in hand with pregnancy.

Bronte presumably got pregnant in a medically advanced country in modern times, not the middle ages so where does the inherent 'above 1% to 5%' risk of dying come from?

And I'll let Bronte answer herself but I'm pretty sure she wants as low a risk as possible, not zero (which would be great but impossible). And I'm with Bronte, if a doctor told me it was a 10% chance of death without an abortion, I would go with the abortion - the best decision for me, my husband and my other children.

 

[bullbars]

not zero (which would be great but impossible).

That is my point. If you are pregnant you have to undertake that your actions come with risks.
At present the law gives a value to the life created by the actions of the parents.

 

[orka]

At present the law gives a value to the life created by the actions of the parents.

And as the Savita inquest is hearing, too much value is given to the life of the foetus, even when it is accepted as no longer viable. Dr Boylan was very very clear that while there were undoubtedly shortcomings in Savita's care, these only changed the inevitable by hours as it was the law which prevented the doctors terminating the pregnancy on the Monday or Tuesday - Savita was not at enough risk of death for the law to allow the doctors to terminate until the Wednesday morning.
No major medical negligence is emerging from the inquest as the anti-abortion side must have hoped; it's coming down to the legal position hampering doctors' actions and that just has to be addressed. Change will come.

 

[T McGibney]

And I'm with Bronte, if a doctor told me it was a 10% chance of death without an abortion, I would go with the abortion - the best decision for me, my husband and my other children.

Note that the existing law would support your decision to terminate, as a 10% risk (or even a much smaller risk) of death would present a real and substantial threat to your life.

 

[orka]

Note that the existing law would support your decision to terminate, as a 10% risk (or even a much smaller risk) of death would present a real and substantial threat to your life.

Unfortunately, there is no agreed legal definition of what 'real and substantial' means. I agree that, to me, 10% is real and substantial but the doctors are currently hampered by the lack of an agreed threshold. Where does it become 'real and substantial'? Bullbars would have us believe that anyone getting pregnant has agreed to dice with death - so is there always a real chance of death in pregnancy? If so, then we're on to what constitutes 'substantial'? 51%? 20%? 10%? 5%? 1%? 0.1%? And how do you even measure the percentage chance of death? Without lots of statistics of cases with exactly the same symptoms/conditions, it's a doctor's judgement.

So back to the doctors - if they decide it is real and substantial, they can do an abortion. But if they get it wrong, they can go to prison (and/or be pulled up before a committe on medical malpractice which I can't imagine is pleasant for any doctor). So they wait until there is absolutely no way they can be retrospectively challenged that there was indeed a real and substantial risk. And most of the time, waiting will be fine. But very occasionally, it won't be. And I don't want that occasion to be me, my daughter, my sister, my friend or, actually, anybody.

 

[bullbars]

Bullbars would have us believe that anyone getting pregnant has agreed to dice with death - so is there always a real chance of death in pregnancy?

Care to re-read my comments again? What I stated is that there is no such things as a zero risk pregnancy, which you then agreed with.

 

[bullbars]

So they wait until there is absolutely no way they can be retrospectively challenged that there was indeed a real and substantial risk. And most of the time, waiting will be fine.

Is this based on anything other than guessing to suit a point of view?

 

[Bronte]

The problem is that this case seems to have been dogged by incompetence and poor decision making at all levels, with extremely tragic consequences.

A notion is now being peddled that an abortion would have saved her. This may well be so. But in that case, the question must be asked of the doctors: why didn't you perform an abortion?

Excellent post Tommy - all of it. I've left those two bits there as the issue is both legal and medical.

 

[Bronte]

Not what ali stated or intimated but nice twist of words there, perhaps you can blame the church on toast landing butter side down next?

Charming as always bullbars. You want to see off Celebastic maybe?

In relation to the Roman Catholic Church and toast, maybe they believe that toast landing butter side down is something to do with them, that's not something I would know. And it's not something I'd worry about. They had a man hanged for proving the world was round.

Treatment and the reasons for treatment of women in hospitals in Ireland and the reasons for our ethics and laws would be of far more relevance which is what Celebastic was getting at as you well know. Should we discuss syphysiotomy perhaps? Or more importantly why it was so prevelant in Irish hospitals and other RCC countries.

 

[Bronte]

Ridiculous contradiction. You do realise that by getting pregnant in the first place you have inherently put your risk level above the 1% to 5%? Pregnancy is a massive drain and stress on both body and mind; exposing it to numerous possible outcomes for both mother and child. To say that you want a zero risk pregnancy yet bore a number of offspring is illogical.
You have children who have put your life at risk, through no fault of their own; yet prior to birth if they risk your life at any stage, you’d be ready to abort.

.

You can talk down to me all you like, you can believe that I who merely had pregnancies and babies know nothing, you wouldn't be the first that completely dismissed my own pregnancy experiencies on here, you can think that you know what I would do if had a risky pregnancy, you can take my post apart point by point if that helps you.

But you cannot state that I would have an abortion because even you do not know this. I may state on here that I find a 1% risk unacceptable or even a 5% risk. That is a different thing to saying I would in those circumstances have an abortion. At the time I would in all probability have one, weighting up all the circumstances and the need of my family to have me in it. If I were in an Irish hospital I would of course have no say in the matter.

Nowhere did I state that I want a zero risk pregnancy. I am talking about the specifics of the question of abortion in the circumstances of which Savita found herself. And for other women who might find themselves in such situations.

Interesting your point of view where a mother is at risk from her pregnancy and she wants to continue but the doctors don't. You think they would force her to have an abortion if it preserved her life? Am I reading you right?

 

[bullbars]

Charming as always bullbars. You want to see off Celebastic maybe?

"See off"? No, I didn't realise Celebtastic is heading away - holidays?

In relation to the Roman Catholic Church and toast, maybe they believe that toast landing butter side down is something to do with them, that's not something I would know. And it's not something I'd worry about.

Start a separate thread? Agreed.

They had a man hanged for proving the world was round.

I see, and this was recently was it? Are we going to cast back through the annals of history and dig up what each religious group was responsible for? Whats the cut off era, it could get tedious otherwise.

Treatment and the reasons for treatment of women in hospitals in Ireland and the reasons for our ethics and laws would be of far more relevance which is what Celebastic was getting at as you well know.

It wasn't actually. It was twisting an aposing opinion into something inherently different. Just because it may side with your agenda doesn't mean you should blindly follow it.

Should we discuss syphysiotomy perhaps? Or more importantly why it was so prevelant in Irish hospitals and other RCC countries.

I don't know, should we? You brought it up, why is it relevant?

 

[Bronte]

And I'm with Bronte, if a doctor told me it was a 10% chance of death without an abortion, I would go with the abortion - the best decision for me, my husband and my other children.

And now we go full circle because you wouldn't have any say in the matter. Not in Ireland anyway. And to hell with your husband and other children. They're a complete irrelevance.

 

[bullbars]

You can talk down to me all you like, you can believe that I who merely had pregnancies and babies know nothing, you wouldn't be the first that completely dismissed my own pregnancy experiencies on here, you can think that you know what I would do if had a risky pregnancy,

I haven't "dismissed" your pregnacies in anyway, ever.

you can take my post apart point by point if that helps you.

I am commenting on the points individually as it would be illegible otherwise.

But you cannot state that I would have an abortion because even you do not know this. I may state on here that I find a 1% risk unacceptable. That is a different thing to saying I would in those circumstances have an abortion.

You did say that 1% would be a maybe - what other recourse do you have to not proceed with the pregnancy?

Nowhere did I state that I want a zero risk pregnancy. I am talking about the specifics of the question of abortion in the circumstances of which Savita found herself. And for other women who might find themselves in such situations.

There are always risks, you assume that she only started at 0% risk when presented to the hospital staff originally she may have been already at the 10% -15% (hypothetically) Other women may find themselves in the same situation and respond better to treatment - or even get the full treatment which seems now to be the crux of the matter.

Interesting your point of view where a mother is at risk from her pregnancy and she wants to continue but the doctors don't. You think they would force her to have an abortion if it preserved her life? Am I reading you right?

No, I'm not sure how you gathered that?
However, I will admit I don't know the legal stance if the mother wishes to proceed knowing that continuing to term will kill her. I'd hazard a guess doctors would be then forced to intervene.