Another abortion referendum?

[Latrade]

Of course, that would make eminent sense. No surprise, though, to see the usual suspects straight out exploiting this sad case to push their abortion agenda, via our malleable liberal media.

People are shocked, upset and genuinely outraged. For most people this is not exploiting the case, it is simply what many women have feared will happen and have said will happen. To suggest that when presented with an example of something they have feared is exploitation is grotesquely insensitive at the very least. We shouldn't cast stones on what sides used to exploit what argument as the "pro-life" (now seemingly a redundant term) has used extreme exploitative actions and its statements yesterday probably didn't help its reputation either.

Having said that I do agree that we don't know the full facts just yet and from what we do know, it's likely that even if the details of the X-Case had been legislated for, the Constitution may have still been too unclear in talking about risk to life of the mother and not her health. But whether or not guidelines were followed, whether or not ethical codes of conduct would permit an abortion, whether or not a professional doctor uttered the term "this is a Catholic Country" is irrelevant because it wasn't even an option, she wasn't given the choice and no woman will be given the choice.

So whatever about religion or faith or lack of, whatever about morality and ethics why do people wish to deny any woman in Savita's position an abortion when it could save her life? Do you really think it would have been an easy decision for her? For any woman in her position? Why would people feel a country is more moral or righteous when it doesn’t even allow her the opportunity to make that decision? How can the death of both the mother and baby when at least one was easily preventable be ethically right?

 

[Bronte]

Id say prolonging a miscarriage for 3 days would constitute a real and substantial risk to the life of a mother wouldnt you? Besides being weakened from pain, the cervix would be open during this time, allowing the opportunity for infection.

You should have a look at the results of a medical symposium held last September with about 140 of the 'healthcare' professionals attending. Check it out via the Telegraph. Read it and weep. I'm too upset at what was allowed to happen to the poor woman, now dead woman to go off on one here. I don't care what future cover up reports eminate from Galway, or more expert reports a Minister wants or 'facts' people want to argue about. I know that a woman is dead, DEAD, because an Irish hospital would not induce labour in a woman whose baby was not viable, but who had a heartbeat. That they left a woman for 3 days in pain, begging for an abortion is just completly barbaric by any standard.

And nobody be fooled, even if there was legislation for the X case, that woman would still be dead because miscarriage is generally not dangerous to the life of a pregnant woman.

 

[Teatime]

Good article here in my opinion

 

[Latrade]

To counter David Quinn, who let's face it is hardly independent in his views or qualified to comment on medical practices, here's an article based on what we do know (medically speaking) from an OB/GYN.

 

[orka]

Good article here in my opinion

I think it's a poor article - the independent, its journalists and commentators have fewer facts (that they can use/print) than the Irish Times because the IT got the interview with the widower. I was effectively banned from commenting on the independent website yesterday when I gave some details that were in the IT but not the indo (and made the mistake of referencing the source when asked by other posters) - my previous posts were deleted and no new ones were published, even ones that had no IT-specific information. I agree we don't have all the facts but we have enough to draw some solid conclusions - unless people are doubting the widower's quite detailed recollection of many events over several days?

 

[Teatime]

.. unless people are doubting the widower's quite detailed recollection of many events over several days?

No but I would really like to get the Doctor's side of the story soon.

 

[Firefly]

I can already see the "defence" from the consultant in question - s/he doesn't want to be sued/struck-off for performing an abortion that could be argued unjust in a court of law and that's fair enough.

Perhaps there should be a list of specific medical conditions/situations where the woman is at risk, where the consultant can safely conduct an abortion and remain within the law?

As a country we certainly seem to have a knack for avoiding tough decisions:

Want to remain neutral but allow the US land in Shannon
Want to remain nuclear-free so we import nuclear energy from the UK
Want to remain abortion-free so we export our problem to the UK

 

[Bronte]

I can already see the "defence" from the consultant in question

If there is a possibility of medical malpractice wouldn't you think the doctor in question would have to stand down until the hospital has confirmed his/her care was in order. In what other job would you be allowed to continue if there was even a suspicion of improper behaviour.

I wouldn't like to be a pregnant woman going into Galway hospital with any complication.

Latrade your link to the Canadian specialist is most informative. Interesting that a doctor from the Galway hospital is linked to the 'symposium' I mentioned earlier. If I were pregnant and needing to make a decision on who to go to for treatment I would love to have a list of the 140 health care professionals who attended in order to make an informed choice.

 

[truthseeker]

If I were pregnant and needing to make a decision on who to go to for treatment I would love to have a list of the 140 health care professionals who attended in order to make an informed choice.

If I were pregnant and suffering a complication I would probably consider the drive to NI a safer option than going to the nearest Irish hospital.

 

[orka]

If there is a possibility of medical malpractice wouldn't you think the doctor in question would have to stand down until the hospital has confirmed his/her care was in order. In what other job would you be allowed to continue if there was even a suspicion of improper behaviour.

Doctors make mistakes all the time, sometimes leading to death. They are very rarely stood down (innocent until proven guilty) – I suspect you would have to be an immediate danger to patients for that to happen.

I’m sure the consultant in question has delivered many babies very safely, is admired and respected by his colleagues and patients and has dealt with many miscarriages in the same way and nothing bad happened. He made his decisions based on current law and guidelines (or lack thereof) and there were terrible consequences. The enemy here is not the doctor* (this could probably have happened to any doctor in any maternity hospital in the state) – but the current law and lack of clear guidelines.

I hope the enquiries are public, independent and speedy and that the doctor is not made a scapegoat for the deficiencies in our legislation – changes to the legislation, with clear accompanying guidelines for doctors are what is required and I hope that is not lost in the furore.

[*That said, it was apparently the consultant who made the Catholic country comment – not medically or legally ‘a crime’ but very poor choice of words for whatever reason – yes he might have been a zealot but he may also have been trying to explain why the law/guidelines are what they are]

 

[Firefly]

If there is a possibility of medical malpractice wouldn't you think the doctor in question would have to stand down until the hospital has confirmed his/her care was in order. In what other job would you be allowed to continue if there was even a suspicion of improper behaviour.

Hi Bronte,

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The problem here is that without legislation and a list of specific conditions where an abortion/termination can be performed, the consultant/hospital is open to being sued for malpractice.

Obviously, in this case, it seems reasonable to assume that this lady would still be alive today if an abortion/termination was performed. However, let's say that the lady, for some reason, was in a coma and she would never have wanted an abortion. What would be the result if the consultant/hospital went ahead with the abortion if the risk to the mother was subjective? Would it be malpractice? It certainly wouldn't look good - "Woman in coma wakes to learn her baby was aborted" or similiar...

Without a specific list of conditions backed by legislation I can't see another way around this.

Finally, re: the current malpractice, I would have thought the consultant would step down until this is resolved. Then again, perhaps the head of the hospital and/or HSE should also step down....

 

[Bronte]

Doctors make mistakes all the time, sometimes leading to death. They are very rarely stood down (innocent until proven guilty) – I suspect you would have to be an immediate danger to patients for that to happen.

I'm not suggesting that doctors should stand down in all cases of mistakes or even death. Just in those that: 1 necessitate at least two non normal enquiries, 2. question time in the Dail, 3 a response from the Health Minister 4. coverage in the world media, 5. Spontaneous protests in Dublin, Cork and London.

 

[Bronte]

Finally, re: the current malpractice, I would have thought the consultant would step down until this is resolved. Then again, perhaps the head of the hospital and/or HSE should also step down....

As I said earlier I don't want to go off on one here. But why on earth would I as a women have any faith in any enquiry. Enquiries by vested interests, enquiries by peers in the same profession. Just the name Neary scares me half to death. He was initially found by a review of his peers to be competant.

Why on earth has the Irish Medical Council not submitted to the Heath Ministers their grounds and reasons for terminations. Why do they need to wait for the incompetant, spineless leglislators to act, they could have outlined the grounds underwhich they will agree to terminations. How come a Canadian doctor, and I'm assuming he knows of which he speaks, can clearly see that this case was apparently medically mishandled but every doctor I've heard or read in Ireland is falling over themselves about facts. Cowards. I do sincerely hope the staff in Galway hospital in this day and age are a lot braver, or as brave as the lone midwife in Drogheda.

I have listened to that tragic ladies husband. It was on the radio yesterday. I see no reason that any report from our emminent medical professionals will change my opinion on what happened.

 

[Latrade]

I've read three or four legal experts in various news outlets who have either said the law is absolutely clear or the law is unclear. So which is it? Based on the fact the those who are saying it is very clear then go onto argue that in this case it is unclear (because at the first instances of asking for an abortion, whiler her health was in danger, her life wasn't). So that's a problem.

But I think there's also muddying of the waters over what doctors can and can't do. She wasn't unconscious, she wasn't in a coma, the doctor wasn't making a decision on her behalf because she wasn't able to communicate. She, and the father, asked on umerous occasions for an abortion and they were refused.

There was absolutely no chance of a claim or case against the hospital from the parents as they specifically asked for it, so why was it refused?

 

[truthseeker]

There was absolutely no chance of a claim or case against the hospital from the parents as they specifically asked for it, so why was it refused?

Probably because if she had died during the abortion the hospital and doctors involved would have been wide open to a legal case from her family for killing her while performing an illegal procedure.

 

[Bronte]

You wouldn't be liable for any claim by the family if you performed an operation that was authorised but unfortunately resulted in death. This happens all the time. But there are two issues in this situation Ethics and the Law

Ethics

My understanding of the refusal is that a medial person made an ethical decision, and because we have the Catholic church brought into it, it appears it was based on Catholic ethics which is against abortion in seemingly all circumstances

(though they get around this 'abortion problem' sometimes by calling it something else other than abortion - this is probably what the symposium referred to above was about).

The Law

As it stands abortion is allowed where the 'life' of the mother is at risk (including suicide) but where your health is at risk it is not allowed. In most cases of miscarriage your life is not at risk. But in this case it looks like the advanced stage of dilation and leaking of amniotic fluid would indicate that it had moved beyond health to life. A tricky distinction, but for an expert who didn't have ethical considerations not a problem.

Law and ethics in Doctors eyes

This is tricky I would say, when a doctor is brought up in the ethics of say the Catholic faith, then to them all life is sacred and equal weight given to both the mother and child's life, but in this particular case, the baby was not viable, so why is there an ethical problem.

I've not fully developed the above, need more time to think about it.

To AAM users: it's good this debate can be had on a reasonable level. Glad that it's with long term posters as we can I think freely debate it and that it has not been hijacked by vested interests. Yet.

 

[orka]

why was it refused?

Because an abortion is permitted only when there is a real and substantial risk to the mother's life - and that wasn't the case here when an abortion was still an option. In this case, there was a real but small risk to her life for at least a couple of the days while there was still a heartbeat. She didn't become really sick until after the heartbeat stopped and the dead foetus was removed - an infection undoubtedly caused by having been left with an open leaking uterus for 3 days. But having an open leaking uterus doesn't always result in a deadly infection - hence the lack of reason for an abortion - tragically she wasn't in enough danger.

 

[Bronte]

And where is the most likely, indeed the worst place for lethal infection?

 

[Latrade]

Because an abortion is permitted only when there is a real and substantial risk to the mother's life - and that wasn't the case here when an abortion was still an option. In this case, there was a real but small risk to her life for at least a couple of the days while there was still a heartbeat. She didn't become really sick until after the heartbeat stopped and the dead foetus was removed - an infection undoubtedly caused by having been left with an open leaking uterus for 3 days. But having an open leaking uterus doesn't always result in a deadly infection - hence the lack of reason for an abortion - tragically she wasn't in enough danger.

Which is questionable based upon the article I referenced above from an OB/GY. In her opinion, it was a very foreseeable risk and wouldn't present itself so seriously so quickly.

I had surgery recently, it presented a risk of infection (as all surgeries do) it was small (about 1%), but that small percentage risk didn't stop the hospital doing all it could ensure I didn't get an infection.

But ultimately she wasn't allowed to have any decision on her body or her life.

 

[orka]

it's good this debate can be had on a reasonable level.

Except there's not much in the way of debate is there? - because what happened was absolutely inexcusable and indefensible. The anti-abortion people are unusually quiet - about the best they can muster is 'let's wait and get all the facts'. I think this case will be a real turning point in forcing people to face up to allowing abortion in some circumstances. My father is usually very anti-abortion but he is horrified that something like this could happen - I think a lot of people are thinking - that could have been my wife/daughter/sister/friend. And I don't think any reasonable person would want the status quo to remain so that this could happen again.