Another abortion referendum?

Status
Not open for further replies.
T McGibney said:
What has this to do with anything?
Click to expand...

Quite a lot. For someone who spends the vast majority of his time judging others and denying equal rights for others for a career, at minimum it's a bit much for him to be asking others to not rush into judgement. Then there's the bit where he skips over much of what is know (just so happens to be included in the IT not the Indo) in order to pretend that we don't know anything. Then there's the bit where he pretends the law is clear, when it isn't. The bit where he says these abortions happen all the time, they don't, and then the bit where he muddies the waters with facts about the safety of giving birth in this country and somehow implying that because other states with legalised abortion have higher rates (only just), that abortion is the cause of this.

Other than that I have absolutely no problem with having someone with a clear bias and personal view on no abortion law presenting themselves as providing "balance" in recent events. No problems at all.
 
While I'm generally pro-life (if that's the pc term), it seems to me that the rules change completely when the foetus will not survive, be that either full term within the womb or outside the womb immediately on birth.

If there's the slightest risk to the mother it seems imminently sensible to "call time" that bit quicker than nature would act. What's the point in risking a viable life for one that is about the end anyway.

One thing I'm wondering about, who exactly are the doctors afraid of when making the call? [I'm not making light of their fears, and I dont envy their position, just wondering from where do they see the threat], in the Galway case with both the pregnant woman and her partner wanted the termination, and there seemed to be reasonable medical grounds for it. So who exactly was going to make an issue out of it?

From my fairly limited knowledge of it it seemed to me that the Supreme Court judges had the right idea, and now is high time to spell out in legislation whatever provisos and protections are needed so that doctors are not left facing such a morass when trying to make a decision.
 
orka said:
The anti-abortion people are unusually quiet - about the best they can muster is 'let's wait and get all the facts'.
Click to expand...

I think you are making a sweeping statement there. I am pro-abortion (with Ts&Cs obviously) but I also want to get all the facts on this case before I make any comment. And thus I agree with David Quinn that people have jumped to conclusions and some people are using this case to push their own agendas.
 
I remember during threads on the child abuse scandal that I got quite angry and made statements that were offensive to posters of a certain religious persuasion, some of whom, based on their posts over the years, I like and respect.

It's so easy during a debate of such an emotional strength to offend and get offended by other posters, something that I forgot when I attacked,even mocked, others views.

A few posts in this thread are starting to verge on the offensive, probably unintentionally. Understandable maybe, but comments made in heat may leave one feeling guilty for some time, as it did me.
 
Last edited:
Latrade said:
Quite a lot. For someone who spends the vast majority of his time judging others and denying equal rights for others for a career.
Click to expand...

Really?


I read Quinn in the Indo and find that he generally presents his arguments with logic and rigour. I don't agree with everything he says, sometimes I disagree profoundly with him, but I respect his opinion. Much of what he has said in recent days in eminently reasonable, in my opinion. Even if it isn't, its a bit odd to see loads of so-called liberals on twitter today foaming at the mouth at himself and Ronan Mullan for having the temerity to disagree with them. Liberals indeed.
 
http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/20...-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

From this blogpost by an experienced OB/GYN doctor, who in case anyone thinks she's a rabid babykiller has also published a book for parents of premature babies.

Not only do I know these scenarios backwards and forwards as an OB/GYN, I had ruptured membranes in my own pregnancy at 22 weeks, a rescue cerclage, and then sepsis. I know how bad it can be.
As Ms. Halappanavar died of an infection, one that would have been brewing for several days if not longer, the fact that a termination was delayed for any reason is malpractice. Infection must always be suspected whenever, preterm labor, premature rupture of the membranes, or advanced premature cervical dilation occurs (one of the scenarios that would have brought Ms. Halappanavar to the hospital).
As there is no medically acceptable scenario at 17 weeks where a woman is miscarrying AND is denied a termination, there can only be three plausible explanations for Ms. Hapappanavar’s “medical care” :
1) Irish law does indeed treat pregnant women as second class citizens and denies them appropriate medical care. The medical team was following the law to avoid criminal prosecution.
2) Irish law does not deny women the care they need; however, a zealous individual doctor or hospital administrator interpreted Catholic doctrine in such a way that a pregnant woman’s medical care was somehow irrelevant and superceded by heart tones of a 17 weeks fetus that could never be viable.
3) Irish law allows abortions for women when medically necessary, but the doctors involved were negligent in that they could not diagnose infection when it was so obviously present, did not know the treatment, or were not competent enough to carry out the treatment.
What we do know is that a young, pregnant, woman who presented to the hospital in a first world country died for want of appropriate medical care. Whether it’s Irish Catholic law or malpractice, only time will tell; however, no answer could possibly ease the pain and suffering of Ms. Halappanavar’s loved ones.
****
Since posting this piece I learned that Ms. Halappanavar’s widower reported that she was leaking amniotic fluid and was fully dilated when first evaluated. There is no medically defensible position for doing anything other than optimal pain control and hastening delivery by the safest means possible.
 


Plus one. One of the reasons I like this site is that for the most part posters are respectful. I have not looked at p.ie but would bet it's into 100's of pages with posters shooting down posters because s/he doesn't agree with them.
 

I don't know why everyone has been so quick to assume that the reasons are either 1 or 2. Surely 3 is just as likely if not more? There have been quite a few cases of medical malpractice in this country. There have been mistakes at births, we see them in the news with settlements being paid. I think everyone knows of some case where the hospital team for example didn't induce labour soon enough, or emergency caesareans which should have been done quicker etc. I prefer to wait for the results of the enquiry to know whether this was anything to do with abortion law or Catholic beliefs etc. If she was in trouble and miscarrying as far as I know (I'm not a doctor) the normal thing would be to do a D&C and that is done all the time in Irish hospitals or you know what, I think more women would be dead. Correct me if I'm wrong. Maybe an error in judgement with treating the infection was made which had nothing to do with abortion law. I still agree that we should legislate, just don't know if this awful story has anything to do with it! If it has not, I think it is wrong to link the two together.
 

I doubt it's done while the foetus is still alive, and it's rarely done beyond 12weeks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilation_and_curettage
 
oldnick said:
I remember during threads on the child abuse scandal that I got quite angry and made statements that were offensive to posters of a certain religious persuasion, some of whom, based on their posts over the years, I like and respect.

.
Click to expand...

You are so right, but it is so easy to get angry when we see what happened in Galway, but also anger is justified when as Irish women we've had to witness so many horrific examples down the years. What I think is interesting about the current debate is the anger and upset of the young women I've heard. It's like they didn't understand the reality of life in Ireland if you're a pregnant women and you have complications/issues. I have a sibling who had to go to England and a very Catholic in-law who went there for the down syndrome test, an aunt who had to go to a Protestant hospital for a hysterectomy etc. And all of this is hidden and shameful. We laugh now at Haughey's solution, imagine one had to get a prescription for a condom. Just imagine that. How on earth was it ever like that. When I had to get the pill I had to go to the family planning clinic and ask them which doctor I could go to. If you lived in a rural area you hadn't a hope as a woman. No family planning clinic, no knowledge of what the pill was, and no chance of getting it from your local GP. When I think of Joanne Hayes and poor poor Ann Lovett (probably being the worst example, no other is as shameful as that one) I think my anger is completely justified.

So now we are at 2012 and no pregnant female has any idea of their rights in the event of problems. For example if one has an ectopic pregnancy, will you be refused treatment, will you be told to go to England, does it depend on the hospital, the particular doctor. We know that women who do not have viable babies who will come to term must go to England. If they want to know this who do they go to. Apparently the 'clinics' who will help them have to operate 'slightly' outside the law in giving them advice. Only in the last month we see some of the extremists going after these clinics, a full witch hunt and setup is what it appeared to me, we see 15 Fine Gael backbenchers who appear to be anti-abortion in all circumstances, trying to get the party to go their way, we see Enda Kenny, dithering and obfuscating. I'd like to have some hope in Gilmore, but as a woman I've realised after all these years, and it has been many years that one rarely has hope, for goodness sake 3 referendum, a Supreme Court Judgement, a European deadline this month, a Time magazine interview with the Taoiseach. Maybe out of this awful tradgy something will be done.

I see the brother of this poor lady wants an independent enquiry and doesn't want the HSE involved. Methinks he'd be right.

Does anyone on here know what rights you have as a pregant female in difficulty, is it outlined anywhere, what you can and cannot do. What you options are.
 
annR said:
. If she was in trouble and miscarrying as far as I know (I'm not a doctor) the normal thing would be to do a D&C and that is done all the time in Irish hospitals or you know what, I think more women would be dead. .
Click to expand...

How do you know this is done all the time, do you know if it's done in all hospitals? And when, under what conditions is it done?

This is a very hard subject but I think it's time we know exactly what we are talking about. D&C is gross, but it has to be done. But hell for some people giving birth is gross. One of my pregnancies was a caesarian and that too was not a pretty sight. But it's nature, we were brought up with it all hidden, you were pregnant, you hid it, you went to hospital, nothing said about that, and you came home with a baby. All very simplistic. As for breastfeeding, even that is taboo in Ireland. I never saw a woman breastfeed until I was well into adulthood and abroad. It stems from the Catholic upbringing of everything to do with women's bodies being dirty and rooted in original sin. It's a very hard thing for Irish society to get rid of. It isn't so long a go women had to be Churched after giving birth.
 
Hi Bronte,
I never mentioned anything about an enquiry, but since you mention it, I totally agree with you. With the hospital itself along with the HSE performing this enquiry, the phrase "Nothing to see here" comes to mind.

I agree that the legislators have been sitting on their rear-ends for far too long on this. However, just because the Medical Council were to submit a list of grounds/reasons for conducting a termination, doesn't mean they are legal and that's correct IMHO - they could submit all sorts of things then..

Bronte said:
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.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I think the facts here are paramount. Whether we like it or not you are innocent until proven guilty as it were. As I mentioned earlier though, IMO, an inquiry by the hospital itself with the HSE does not make me feel confident that the true facts will emerge.
 
Bronte said:
I have a sibling who had to go to England and a very Catholic in-law who went there for the down syndrome test.
Click to expand...

Where there is a real & substantive risk to the life of the mother or where it's guaranteed that the baby will not survive once outside of the womb, I don't think too many people would have an issue with a termination. However, in the case above ( and I presume you are inferring that if the baby was down syndrome that the sibling would seek an abortion, but apologies if not), this to me is "abortion on-demand" and is totally different. For the record I am against it. Also, where do you draw the line - we want a boy so we'll abort if it's a girl etc.

Having said that though, it's only my opinion, and what I think we really need is referendum.
 

That's what happens in debates; people disagree. Just because people don't agree with Quinn and Mullan, doesn't mean they can't voice their disagreement. They are the two most public apologists for the Catholic Church, every issue that has implied church involvement (and some of those implications were wrong), they come out, and in Quinns case get a lot of column inches and air time, to defend the church.
So people may be suspicious of why a man who often judges homosexuals, athiests, women who have or wish to have the choice of having an abortion at the drop of a hat and fills numerous columns with very thinly hidden bile, is suddenly the voice of reason and calling for no rush judgements (in an article that itself judges and as you do has a dig at liberals and those who are genuinely upset at what has happened).
Quinn is an example of the media's love for extreme views to fuel "debate" and give a false sense of "balance" (and that is commentators on the left and right). Quinn's particular talent is misdirection and throwing "facts" in while shouting to give a sense of winning an argument. As I said, the specific article on Savita is rife with them, if he wanted to call for reason and for people to not rush to judgement, then he should have stopped there. Instead he filled it, again, with sly attacks and irrelevant statistics.
I'm happy to not be too rash to judge. My call is for legislation to clarify the constitution, like we've been waiting for 20 years for. And from my own experience that's exactly what everyone else is calling for. Most people seem to agree that the "it's a catholic country" statement could have been taken out of context (if it was said) and so their anger is at the legislators, not the church.
It is the church apologists who are claiming again the church is the victim of a liberal attack. Either they're paranoid, stupid, illiterate or vindictively using Savita's death to portray themselves as the victim in this case.
 
Firefly said:
Having said that though, it's only my opinion, and what I think we really need is referendum.
Click to expand...

Yes, this tragic case was just waiting to happen under the current lack of legislation and clarity.

I also believe we need a referendum. Since the right to travel and the right to information (the thirteen and fourteenth amendments), successive governments and the electorate have largely ignored the issue - because it could be easily exported to the UK by women taking cheap flights. Unfortunately a women in hospital suffering a miscarriage is not in a position to take a cheap flight. We have approximately 4000 women a year going to the UK for abortions - why is this acceptable to anyone? There has been another thread recently where someone mentioned that the long wait to divorce in Ireland caused them to go to the UK to divorce quickly. Have we just become a country where we take flights to sort out all moral and legal decisions? Its disgraceful.

Since the eighth amendment in 1983 (the constitutional ban on abortion) there have been four attempts to clarify it. Each of these attempts has resulted in a win for the pro-choice side.

Im not really interested in legislation being enacted on a 20 year old case at this stage, Id like to see a referendum to fully clarify the issue in its entirety. Although I doubt this will happen.
 
Latrade said:
My call is for legislation to clarify the constitution, like we've been waiting for 20 years for. And from my own experience that's exactly what everyone else is calling for.
Click to expand...

Actually Latrade, Id prefer a referendum over legislation based on a 20 year old case.
 
At least it's just the liberals who are capitalising and rushing to judgement: seen outside usual pro-life GPO spot (picture)
 
truthseeker said:
Actually Latrade, Id prefer a referendum over legislation based on a 20 year old case.
Click to expand...

Oh I'd agree with you 100%. The legislation isn't nearly enough for what I believe should be a right of choice. However, my point was that the critics of those who are angry (calling them "so-called liberals") are trying to present an image of a group of people bashing the church when they are more-or-less in totality angry with a succession of governments that hasn't introduced the most basic legislation that the Supreme Court and European Court has instructed them to do on basis of a woman's individual right to life and well-being.

We are free to speculate, and why not, on why that legislation hasn't been introduced as of yet and yes that may lead to anger to the influence of the church or influence of a catholic view on public policy, but that isn't where the anger and accusations are being laid.

Quinn's position is to pretend to be the voice of reason asking for people to stop blaiming the church until we hear the full facts. This sounds reasonable, except no one is blaming the church, they're blaming the government(s). So now we can be angry at Quinn for being completely insensitive and vindictive enough to use this death to gain sympathy for the church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register