Another abortion referendum?

Status
Not open for further replies.

A huge bug bear for me. I don't believe that everyone who opposes abortion does so from a religious point of view. I certainly don't. I'm a woman, a feminist and I support divorce, access to contraception, equal rights for gay couples and many issues which are considered liberal and the antithesis of Catholic thinking. I'm also an atheist and I strongly oppose the provision of abortion services on demand. I struggle like many people with the boundaries of where abortion could / should be made available but I think it should be a last resort.

This notion of the right to choose bothers me and more so this concept of "a woman never chooses an abortion lightly and it's a deeply personal and difficult decision to make - it should be left up to her to make it - it's her body". It is also the body of the potential human being she is carrying and also the child of another person - the father. And women make stupid and selfish and irresponsible decisions all the time - just like men do. Because we are people. We also make clever, well thought out, informed decisions - but why we should assume that this will always be the case when the decision to terminate a pregnancy is in question?
 
Bronte said:
How is what I've posted a gross misrepresentation of the actual position.
Click to expand...

My most recent post should explain.

Bronte said:
Do you not think that a doctor who has testified that she had to wait until there was a 51% risk of death is telling the truth. Or do you think she was incorrect? Or do you think her particular 'interpretation' of the law was incorrect?
Click to expand...

Ditto


Doctors, in all situations, are professionally and legally obliged both to think of, and have regard for, the law. The case of Harold Shipman and the ongoing (and unspeakably horrific) trial of abortion clinic owner Kermit Gosnell should help you understand the dangers of ignoring this core principle of medicine.
 
T McGibney said:
The extremely low rates of Irish maternity mortality clearly indicate that between them they are doing an excellent job in that regard, but the pro-abortion cheerleaders claim expectant mothers are dying like flies. Make of that what you will.
Click to expand...

A maternal mortality rate of 8/100,000 is not "extremely low", it's about average for developed countries.

I haven't noticed anyone claiming expectant mothers are "dying like flies" (what lovely terminology). However, we do know that women such as Michelle Harte who are suffering from cancer, avail of abortion services in the UK, on the advice of their doctors.
 
very good post ali
 
Dr Peter Boylan is reported to have told the inquest into the death of Savita Halappanavar that legally, she could not have an abortion on the Tuesday, when she requested it as there was not a "substantial" risk to her life at that point. However, if she had had an abortion then, she would most likely be still alive today.
 
Nige said:
However, if she had had an abortion then, she would most likely be still alive today.
Click to expand...
Your opinion or did Dr. Peter Boylan say that?

[broken link removed] by Dr. Sam Coulter-Smith (Master of the Rotunda) re medical ethical dilemmas in caring for mother and unborn child is worth watching for those interested who have 20 minutes to spare.
 

There was a substantial risk to her life on the Tuesday, but the medical staff were not aware of this because they had previously failed to carry out tests that would have detected such a risk.
 

2010 stats from the Lancet, reproduced in the Guardian confirm Ireland's maternal mortality rate at 5.7/100,000.

This is:
30% lower than the UK rate of 8.2/100,000;
43% lower than the French rate of 10.0/100,000; and
65% lower than the US rate of 16.7/100,000.
 
T McGibney said:
2010 stats from the Lancet, reproduced in the Guardian confirm Ireland's maternal mortality rate at 5.7/100,000.
Click to expand...

I suggest you read the Maternal Death Enquiry in Ireland report ([broken link removed]) which gives the rate of 8/100,000 and also addresses the historical issues with figures in Ireland which resulted in an under reporting of maternal mortality here.
 
T McGibney said:
There was a substantial risk to her life on the Tuesday, but the medical staff were not aware of this because they had previously failed to carry out tests that would have detected such a risk.
Click to expand...

That doesn't tie into Dr Boylan's testimony. He said that there was no substantial risk to her life when she requested the termination on Tuesday.

From what I can make of his testimony, sepsis, which was diagnosed at 6:30am on Wednesday may have been there for a number of hours beforehand, but not days as each hour of non-treatment increases the mortality rate by 6%.
 

I have read it, and note that it counts deaths within 1 year after end of pregnancy as a maternal death. This seems to be a rather generous definition.

There is no mention of whether the 'historical issues' of reporting in Ireland are replicated elsewhere, so it is impossible to deduce international comparisons on foot of it. The report does mention a UK initiative to improve their own reporting, so its quite likely that the previously stated UK figure of 8.2/100,000 is also understated.

I note also that the report doesn't mention abortion non-availability as a contributory factor towards maternal mortality.
 

But didnt she display symptoms on Monday which would normally have been expected to warrant blood tests, but which weren't completed. Hence the doctors were unable to recognise any risk to her life on Tuesday.
 
blueband said:
id say its 51% across the board in all hospitals, cant see galway having special rules of its own.
Click to expand...

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.

There's also the question of how the doctors measure this.

The Supreme Court never mentioned percentages. So that's not very helpful.

Having gone through pregnancy myself and having kids to look after and a husband thus being a family that needs me, 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.

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.

And this counts for top class maternity care in a first world country.
 
michaelm said:
Your opinion or did Dr. Peter Boylan say that?

.
Click to expand...


Yes he certainly said it and he did a wonderful job didn't he. It's the law stupid that's at fault. Nothing to do with the complete and utter incompetence of most of the medical team in Galway particular, oh wait, another obstetrician.

Brilliant performance by Boylan.

(Michaelm you and I don't agree about abortion so to be clear my expression with the word stupid in it is not directed at you it's just an expression)
 
T McGibney said:
But didnt she display symptoms on Monday which would normally have been expected to warrant blood tests, but which weren't completed. Hence the doctors were unable to recognise any risk to her life on Tuesday.
Click to expand...

Even if they had done the tests and shown any kind of proper medical care and attention and worked out there was a risk, 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.

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. Inevitable miscarriage, pain, and ruptured membranes is good enough anywhere else.

Did anyone honestly believe that one Irish doctor would ever castigate another. 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 and why do you think another midwife is so ill she cannot attend the inquest.

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.
 

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"?
 
celebtastic said:
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"?
Click to expand...

I don't know about that Celebastic, Ali's post was a very interesting viewpoint from an atheist. I certainly didn't see it being from someone embracing the RCC's viewpoint. Also she did mention that abortion should be a last resort so I don't think it's fair to say that she supports a women dying in pain, she presumably along with most right thinking people including I assume everyone on this thread that Savita should have had a termination on the Monday.

Maybe there are people on this thread that think there should have been no termination before the Wednesday but I don't think so. No matter how ardently anti abortion you are surely.

In relation to the RCC and it's treatment of women, where would I start. So I do agree with your previous post on that.
 
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 went through a very similar crisis in the UK a number of years ago and am glad that I was living in London and not Ireland at the time or I may not be alive now to tell the tale.
 
Bronte said:
Maybe there are people on this thread that think there should have been no termination before the Wednesday but I don't think so. No matter how ardently anti abortion you are surely.
Click to expand...
Dr. Boylan's opinion, no doubt expert and benefiting from hindsight, is an opinion. Other doctors may disagree, for example Dr. Divakar of the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India, see here. In this specific case the doctors perhaps should have clinically diagnosed sepsis at an earlier stage. We can't know whether an earlier termination would have resulted in a different outcome.

In any event, I think you're mistaken to assume that those who are 'ardently anti abortion' would agree with termination of pregnancy in cases where the life of the mother is not perceived to be at risk.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register