Ireland Abortion Scandal: Death of a Pregnant Woman Prompts Soul-Searching

[WiccanLiberal]

The death of an Indian woman who was allegedly refused an abortion (http://topics.time.com/abortion/)
even though her life appeared to her and her husband to be in danger has prompted Irish abortion rights activists to protest in several cities around the predominantly Catholic country. The public announcement on Nov. 14 of the woman’s death, which occurred last month in a hospital in the city of Galway, coincides with the release of a report commissioned by the Irish government into whether Ireland (http://topics.time.com/ireland/)
’s strict abortion laws should be liberalized.

Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/11/14/ireland-abortion-scandal-death-of-a-pregnant-woman-prompts-soul-searching/#ixzz2CF39e6sA



This story is tremendously upsetting. No matter your position on abortion generally, this woman clearly needed help she was denied. Her adopted country and her medical colleagues (she was a dentist) failed her miserably. No woman should ever die in this way in a supposedly civilized country.

[Noir]

When asked why she was refused the doctor who's care she was in reportedly said "This is a Catholic country"....which is just about the worst thing he could of said.

Thousands of people spontaneously organised outside the Irish Parliament tonight in protest.

[logroller]

An autopsy carried out by the hospital two dayslater found that she had died from blood-poisoning and an infection known as E.coli ESBL, according to a report in the Irish Times. op source.
not sure what the relation is between dying of an infection and not having a abortion. She wasn't pregnant with bacterium. Did they not treat her infection because she was pregnant?

[Noir]

op source.
not sure what the relation is between dying of an infection and not having a abortion. She wasn't pregnant with bacterium. Did they not treat her infection because she was pregnant?

She was having a miscarriage, that took place over 3 days, causing septicaemia (and i would also guess toxic shock). And was repeatedly denied an abortion during those days.

[Kathianne]

The death of an Indian woman who was allegedly refused an
abortion (http://topics.time.com/abortion/)
even though her life appeared to her and her husband to be in danger has prompted Irish abortion rights activists to protest in several cities around the predominantly Catholic country. The public announcement on Nov. 14 of the woman’s death, which occurred last month in a hospital in the city of Galway, coincides with the release of a report commissioned by the Irish government into whether
Ireland (http://topics.time.com/ireland/)
’s strict abortion laws should be liberalized.

Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/11/14/ireland-abortion-scandal-death-of-a-pregnant-woman-prompts-soul-searching/#ixzz2CF39e6sA



This story is tremendously upsetting. No matter your position on abortion generally, this woman clearly needed help she was denied. Her adopted country and her medical colleagues (she was a dentist) failed her miserably. No woman should ever die in this way in a supposedly civilized country.


From what I can understand by what's here, the hospital's stance was contrary to Church teachings.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

[jafar00]

It's such a shame that the Church has such an immovable influence in the job of the doctors. The mother's life was clearly at risk and the baby was dead. It should have been removed.

[jimnyc]

It's such a shame that the Church has such an immovable influence in the job of the doctors. The mother's life was clearly at risk and the baby was dead. It should have been removed.

It was "law". If a law is ever passed banning abortion in the US, that's not the Church, but rather lawmakers. Granted, the Church has influence, but this would still be the decision of lawmakers that would be making such a procedure illegal. I honestly don't know about Ireland, but I think if anything, it's the laws that should be blamed, not the church for their stance. Maybe blame the Church for having influence over lawmakers. But I think religions in all countries have influence over laws, wouldn't you agree?

And while I am no fan of abortion, I think in cases of rape and the mother's life being in danger are different, and MUCH different if the baby is dead already. But from what I'm reading, they legally couldn't do anything until there was no heartbeat. That's where I think the main issue comes in. If this baby couldn't survive, they knew death was imminent, and the mother's life was in danger - they should have made her life the primary responsibility.

[revelarts]

It's tragic.
But as Kathianne points out the life of the mother is an universally accepted exception in Christian teachings. Looks like a case where the law goes farther than the Church.

As tragic as the case is, i doubt it happens at the UK abortion rate of 500+ per day.

Maybe those deaths will make the news again too.

[Marcus Aurelius]

It's such a shame that the Church has such an immovable influence in the job of the doctors. The mother's life was clearly at risk and the baby was dead. It should have been removed.

As would be allowed by the church under the circumstances in this case.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

However, if medical (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10122a.htm) treatment or surgical operation, necessary (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10733a.htm) to save a mother's life (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm), is applied to her organism (though the child's death would, or at least might, follow as a regretted but unavoidable consequence), it should not be maintained that the fetal life (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm) is thereby directly attacked. Moralists (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14601a.htm) agree that we are not always prohibited from doing what is lawful in itself, though evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) consequences may follow which we do not desire. The good effects of our acts are then directly intended, and the regretted evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) consequences are reluctantly permitted to follow because we cannot avoid them. The evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) thus permitted is said to be indirectly intended. It is not imputed to us provided four conditions (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04211a.htm) are verified, namely:



That we do not wish the evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) effects, but make all reasonable efforts to avoid them;
That the immediate effect be good in itself;
That the evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) is not made a means to obtain the good effect; for this would be to do evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) that good might come of it — a procedure never allowed;
That the good effect be as important at least as the evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05649a.htm) effect.

All four conditions (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04211a.htm) may be verified in treating or operating on a woman (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15687b.htm) with child. The death of the child is not intended, and every reasonable precaution is taken to save its life (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm); the immediate effect intended, the mother's life (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm), is good — no harm is done to the child in order to save the mother — the saving of the mother's life (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm) is in itself as good as the saving of the child's life (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09238c.htm).
According to the church, this woman should have been granted surgery to save her life, even though it would have an 'evil effect' on the unborn child. The hospital or doctor involved was in error.

[jafar00]

As would be allowed by the church under the circumstances in this case.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

According to the church, this woman should have been granted surgery to save her life, even though it would have an 'evil effect' on the unborn child. The hospital or doctor involved was in error.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Kathianne]

As would be allowed by the church under the circumstances in this case.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01046b.htm

According to the church, this woman should have been granted surgery to save her life, even though it would have an 'evil effect' on the unborn child. The hospital or doctor involved was in error.

Thank you for reiterating what I said earlier. None of this was in line with Church teachings, nor are those 'new' teachings. Was true 50 years ago too.

[Kathianne]

It's tragic.
But as Kathianne points out the life of the mother is an universally accepted exception in Christian teachings. Looks like a case where the law goes farther than the Church.

As tragic as the case is, i doubt it happens at the UK abortion rate of 500+ per day.

Maybe those deaths will make the news again too.

Not commonly understood is that 'rape' too falls under a time compelling 'loop hole' for want of a better term. If a woman calls in a rape and is immediately taken to a Catholic hospital or goes to hospital on her own and it's probable a rape occurred, after doing the rape kit, a D & C will be performed. Since conception cannot be verified or assumed, they will make sure it cannot occur.

[Kathianne]

I assume that most if not all are familiar with the Hyde Amendment of days gone by? In spite of his 'youthful transgressions' he was very Catholic, which led to his charge for this amendment. Exceptions to the rule: rape, incest, physical health of the mother. In line with Church teachings.

[jafar00]

As a side note. Does the Catholic church have a similar abortion dispensation as in Islam where an abortion is allowed as long as it is performed before the soul is breathed into the fetus? This is 120 days according to Islamic sources.

[Kathianne]

As a side note. Does the Catholic church have a similar abortion dispensation as in Islam where an abortion is allowed as long as it is performed before the soul is breathed into the fetus? This is 120 days according to Islamic sources.

Never heard that one. That would be at near 4 months.

[Robert A Whit]

The death of an Indian woman who was allegedly refused an
abortion (http://topics.time.com/abortion/)
even though her life appeared to her and her husband to be in danger has prompted Irish abortion rights activists to protest in several cities around the predominantly Catholic country. The public announcement on Nov. 14 of the woman’s death, which occurred last month in a hospital in the city of Galway, coincides with the release of a report commissioned by the Irish government into whether
Ireland (http://topics.time.com/ireland/)
’s strict abortion laws should be liberalized.

Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/11/14/ireland-abortion-scandal-death-of-a-pregnant-woman-prompts-soul-searching/#ixzz2CF39e6sA



This story is tremendously upsetting. No matter your position on abortion generally, this woman clearly needed help she was denied. Her adopted country and her medical colleagues (she was a dentist) failed her miserably. No woman should ever die in this way in a supposedly civilized country.


Are you making the case that women who plan to live should never get pregnant?

I tend to doubt we knew all the story.

[Robert A Whit]

She had E Coli and I have never heard that women catch that disease by being pregnant. She had something else wrong too.

My question is why didn't they treat her for what ailed her rather than make this about the child.

They removed the child when it was dead.

[Noir]

She had E Coli and I have never heard that women catch that disease by being pregnant. She had something else wrong too.

My question is why didn't they treat her for what ailed her rather than make this about the child.

They removed the child when it was dead.

The E. Coli is a separate issue, that had no bearing on the Doctors refusal to let her terminate the pregnancy, rather than suffer a 3 day miscarriage that resulted in blood poisoning.

Whether or not she had E. Coli, she would of died because of her doctors actions.

[jimnyc]

The E. Coli is a separate issue, that had no bearing on the Doctors refusal to let her terminate the pregnancy, rather than suffer a 3 day miscarriage that resulted in blood poisoning.

Whether or not she had E. Coli, she would of died because of her doctors actions.

Was it the doctors actions, or the law in that area which states he couldn't terminate? The site linked stated he couldn't terminate until no heartbeat could be detected, per law. Seems to me like he acted within the law - and that this law should be changed.

[Noir]

Was it the doctors actions, or the law in that area which states he couldn't terminate? The site linked stated he couldn't terminate until no heartbeat could be detected, per law. Seems to me like he acted within the law - and that this law should be changed.

Seems he acted within the law, but failed to apply common sense. The foetus was going to die, not matter what, that was unavoidable. But the doctor chose to ignore that.
The doctor was at fault for her death, law or not.

[jimnyc]

Seems he acted within the law, but failed to apply common sense. The foetus was going to die, not matter what, that was unavoidable. But the doctor chose to ignore that.
The doctor was at fault for her death, law or not.

To an extent I agree, but at what consequence? (I really don't know). Would he have been fined? The hospital? Jail time? Seems to me like the citizens need to repeal this dumb law, as if the baby was definitely going to die, the right thing to do is to put the mothers life as primary.

[WiccanLiberal]

Since I see several questions regarding the relevance of the preganancy and infection issue, I will attempt to clarify. The woman had ruptured the amniotic membranes containing the fetus. She was leaking fluid. This means an opening existed INTO her body as well. The bacteria invade, infecting the contents of her uterus and crossing into her blood. The end result, massive septicemia. Most OB handbooks quote the figure that ruptured membranes of any longer duration than 18 hours constitute a high risk for infection of this sort.

[Nell's Room]

I don't give a fig whether Ireland is a Catholic country, or what the beliefs of the doctors were. They had a woman, in pain, miscarrying, no chance of the fetus surviving. After three days and no fetus, they should have done the moral thing and removed the fetus, whether it was alive or not. A woman is dead because of a countries strict anti abortion laws.

[jimnyc]

I don't give a fig whether Ireland is a Catholic country, or what the beliefs of the doctors were. They had a woman, in pain, miscarrying, no chance of the fetus surviving. After three days and no fetus, they should have done the moral thing and removed the fetus, whether it was alive or not. A woman is dead because of a countries strict anti abortion laws.

Just keep in mind, the doctors had little choice in the first to things you mention based on the 3rd. Doctors must follow the law, or risk penalty, jail and likely end of their career with a loss of their license.

[Nell's Room]

^but if they had done the abortion, I doubt there would be any conviction due to the nature of the case. I understand they were conflicted, but really, there shouldn't be any confliction at all. Mum is dying, perform the abortion to save her life. It should be the first thing you think of.

[jimnyc]

^but if they had done the abortion, I doubt there would be any conviction due to the nature of the case. I understand they were conflicted, but really, there shouldn't be any confliction at all. Mum is dying, perform the abortion to save her life. It should be the first thing you think of.

They wouldn't have a law that outlaws an abortion unless the heartbeat had fully stopped if they had no intention on upholding such a law. It's not a doctors place to decide the law, only abide by it. He can't hope it sides with him and risk his career. The best thing to be done here is to have such laws changed so this kind of thing doesn't happen again.

[Noir]

They wouldn't have a law that outlaws an abortion unless the heartbeat had fully stopped if they had no intention on upholding such a law. It's not a doctors place to decide the law, only abide by it. He can't hope it sides with him and risk his career. The best thing to be done here is to have such laws changed so this kind of thing doesn't happen again.

The current law is grey, rather than black and white.


Irish law does not specify under what circumstances the threat to the life or health of the mother is high enough to justify a termination, leaving doctors to decide. Critics say this means doctors' personal beliefs can play a role.
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8AD1QD20121115?irpc=932

The Doctor had the judgement call, and time and again he made the wrong one, almost certainly resulting in this womens death.

[jimnyc]

The current law is grey, rather than black and white.


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE8AD1QD20121115?irpc=932

The Doctor had the judgement call, and time and again he made the wrong one, almost certainly resulting in this womens death.

Do you have a link to the actual codified law? From the original article - Staff refused, according to Praveen Halappanavar, on the grounds that they were prohibited from performing abortions by law and that they could not remove the fetus until its heart had stopped beating.

I then did a search on google using these terms - ireland law abortion heart stop beating

Admittedly, I could not find the actual codified law, but every site that wasn't discussing opinion appears to state the same thing. But lastly, if it's a "judgement call", and that's part of the law, then the doctor can't be held responsible for the judgement he made. I find it hard to believe that the law would state it's a judgement call for a doctor as then each doctor would therefore make a decision based on his or her judgement, creating conflicting results.
Staff refused, according to Praveen Halappanavar, on the grounds that they were prohibited from performing abortions by law and that they could not remove the fetus until its heart had stopped beating.

Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/11/14/ireland-abortion-scandal-death-of-a-pregnant-woman-prompts-soul-searching/#ixzz2Ch8H8yqU

Staff refused, according to Praveen Halappanavar, on the grounds that they were prohibited from performing abortions by law and that they could not remove the fetus until its heart had stopped beating.

Read more: http://world.time.com/2012/11/14/ireland-abortion-scandal-death-of-a-pregnant-woman-prompts-soul-searching/#ixzz2Ch8H8yqU

[jimnyc]

I'm also reading, on several sites, that any and all abortions were outlawed until 1992 when the SC made it legal to do so when the mothers life was at risk, but that several governments have yet to pass laws to end the confusion. If that be the case, the doctor would still need to follow the law in his jurisdiction, unless he's prepared to perhaps lose his license and have the money to fight it to the SC for a possible reversal. The wrongdoing here is the laws, and those in charge failing to pass laws to take the liability away from doctors. While I agree that this is a stupid law, and the mothers life should easily come first especially given the fact that they knew the baby wasn't going to make it, that still doesn't give a doctor a "right" to ignore the law. It's quite possible that he could have been charged with a crime or lose his license, or even worse, major penalties to the hospital as well. Without a guarantee of no prosecution, doctors simply cannot take the law into their own hands, or in this case, ignore the law. But after seeing this fiasco, the government should immediately pass various laws to ensure this doesn't happen again. Abortions will still be illegal and the ladies will still run off to England for them, but at least in emergency cases such as this they will have the authority to terminate the life and save the mother.

[jimnyc]

Here is the best I can find on the law thus far:

58. Every Woman, being with Child, who, with Intent to procure her own Miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, and whosoever, with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman, whether she be or be not with Child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, shall be guilty of [an offence], and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ..., to [imprisonment] for Life .... 59. Whosoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any Poison or other noxious Thing, or any Instrument or Thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman, whether she be or be not with Child, shall be guilty of [an offence], and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ..., to [imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years].

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state. This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

[Noir]

The law concerning abortion has most of it weight in the 1861 Offences against the Persons Act, Section 59.


Whosoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any poison or other noxious thing, or any instrument or thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, whether she be or be not with child, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . . . to be kept in penal servitude . . .
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/contents

There have been several amendments in more recent times such as 1983 8th Amendment which states
"The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

I would declare that not only was the unborn putting the life of the mother in danger, but that the doctor involved knew that the unborn was certain to die. The doctor would of had the law on his side had he performed the abortion. However, his smokescreen is to say that the law is unclear, and needs clarified. I see nothing unclear about the 8th amendment.

[jimnyc]

The law concerning abortion has most of it weight in the 1861 Offences against the Persons Act, Section 59.


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/contents

There have been several amendments in more recent times such as 1983 8th Amendment which states
"The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right."

I would declare that not only was the unborn putting the life of the mother in danger, but that the doctor involved knew that the unborn was certain to die. The doctor would of had the law on his side had he performed the abortion. However, his smokescreen is to say that the law is unclear, and needs clarified. I see nothing unclear about the 8th amendment.

I see non-clarity in whether or not a life is guaranteed to be lost, both in that of a mother and a child. And the amendment guarantees the right to life of both. Which leaves us back at square one - does a doctor risk "penal servitude" aka jailtime, or does he make a judgement call and take his chances. No doctor should have to perform their duties with a risk of jail if they make an incorrect choice, which is why the laws need to be changed making it clear what the doctor can do and exactly when. To claim it is a smokescreen is simply your anti-religion coming through. A doctor is a professional and must follow laws. The amendment does give rights to both the baby and the mother, but does NOTHING to change the fact that the law additionally states that an abortion cannot be performed until there is no heartbeat. The law is against him, whether he wanted to perform the procedure or not, and it's HIS freedom and HIS license on the line, not those who have a political stance.

[Abbey Marie]

Whatever the facts in this case, it is generally bad law that is made based on one instance. Is there a pattern of this type of problem in Ireland?

[jimnyc]

The bottom line is that there is much ambiguity and lack of clarification in laws and decisions. This is something that should be immediately addressed and rectified. No doctor OR individual should be left to their own devices to interpret a law and decide whether or not their actions are in violation. Something such as abortion should be as clear as night and day. No profession, especially, should have their livelihood on the line when trying to help a patient, and then be scolded when he/she makes a decision. It's obvious, especially in such a religious state, that either "choice" is going to make someone angry - which is why a professional should follow the law to a T - and if the law is ambiguous and not clear, then it needs fixing.

[jimnyc]

Whatever the facts in this case, it is generally bad law that is made based on one instance. Is there a pattern of this type of problem in Ireland?

I don't know of patterns, but the SC and various governments are at odds and there have been updates to laws in certain areas and not others. Imagine if a doctor roamed from hospital to hospital as we have here in the States? If the SC has made a demand, then the governments should now be forced to update their laws. I don't think it appropriate to force a doctor to make a choice and then potentially have to defend himself. Noir thinks it would be an open/shut case, but in such a Catholic country, it's quite possible he/she could be found liable.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't know of patterns, but the SC and various governments are at odds and there have been updates to laws in certain areas and not others. Imagine if a doctor roamed from hospital to hospital as we have here in the States? If the SC has made a demand, then the governments should now be forced to update their laws. I don't think it appropriate to force a doctor to make a choice and then potentially have to defend himself. Noir thinks it would be an open/shut case, but in such a Catholic country, it's quite possible he/she could be found liable.

You raise an interesting point. For those here who advocate the States having the decision on the legality of abortion, we could have a similar problem here. We live practically on the border with Pennsylvania, and I could see a doctor getting confused if one state is pro-abortion and the adjoining one is not. (assuming doctors can practice in more than one state).

[Noir]

But there is no ambiguity =/


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

The unborn only has a right to life, if it does not infringe on the mothers right to life.

[jimnyc]

You raise an interesting point. For those here who advocate the States having the decision on the legality of abortion, we could have a similar problem here. We live practically on the border with Pennsylvania, and I could see a doctor getting confused if one state is pro-abortion and the adjoining one is not. (assuming doctors can practice in more than one state).

Surely they can, they just need to be licensed, just like lawyers practicing in multiple states. And if a particular hospital tells this traveling doctor that the law in their vicinity is to do "example A" and a hospital in another region tells a doctor in their vicinity that the law is "example B", then the doctor performs the procedure based on the law, not his feelings, unless he wants to risk it being his last procedure, or risk losing his bank accounts and homes.

[jimnyc]

But there is no ambiguity =/


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

The unborn only has a right to life, if it does not infringe on the mothers right to life.

To YOU there is no ambiguity. The unborn's life in any instance isn't "only has a right" - it's an EQUAL right. That would then be left as to whether or not the baby had any chance at survival, a heartbeat and whether the mom had a chance of surviving. ALL are judgement calls for a doctor and ALL could have him/her losing a license and being charged with a criminal act.

[Noir]

To YOU there is no ambiguity. The unborn's life in any instance isn't "only has a right" - it's an EQUAL right. That would then be left as to whether or not the baby had any chance at survival, a heartbeat and whether the mom had a chance of surviving. ALL are judgement calls for a doctor and ALL could have him/her losing a license and being charged with a criminal act.

Yes. An equal right *with due regard to the mothers right to life.*
Thats the whole point of the 'with due regard' sentence.

In any case, if the doctor thought the 17 week unborn was going to survive a 3 day miscarriage, without amniotic fluid, I don't think he should be allowed to make any more 'judgement calls'

[jimnyc]

Yes. An equal right *with due regard to the mothers right to life.*
Thats the whole point of the 'with due regard' sentence.

In any case, if the doctor thought the 17 week unborn was going to survive a 3 day miscarriage, without amniotic fluid, I don't think he should be allowed to make any more 'judgement calls'

Which is why they need to update the law so that these questions don't remain.

[Noir]

Which is why they need to update the law so that these questions don't remain.

The current law is that an unborn has the right to life, unless it infringes on the mothers right to life, what update would you make to that law?

[jimnyc]

The current law is that an unborn has the right to life, unless it infringes on the mothers right to life, what update would you make to that law?

It does NOT say "unless it infringes..." The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother..."

and the law has NOT been updated in all parts of Ireland. And it does NOT change the prior law and revoke the ability to put a doctor in jail in ALL circumstances. In other words, it's ambiguous all over the place in wording and location.

[Noir]

It does NOT say "unless it infringes..." The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother..."

and the law has NOT been updated in all parts of Ireland. And it does NOT change the prior law and revoke the ability to put a doctor in jail in ALL circumstances. In other words, it's ambiguous all over the place in wording and location.

And 'unless it infringes' is a synonym of 'with due regard'
What do you think 'with due regard' means?

[jimnyc]

And 'unless it infringes' is a synonym of 'with due regard'
What do you think 'with due regard' means?

Why did you ignore the rest of my post which addresses the ambiguity in the law throughout the nation and covering the fact that not all areas have updated laws as demanded by the SC? And due regard means they should take into consideration the mothers life and the totality of the circumstances - and the law in that jurisdiction states that a doctor may go to jail if he makes that wrong "choice".

If you don't think the laws should be updated throughout the country to address these issues, so be it, but that seems to go against your stance that the wrong decision was made in this case. Hell, there are TONS of groups protesting in Ireland right now DEMANDING that laws be updated to prevent this from happening again. If the law was fine as-is, then why the cry for updates? These don't look like demands to uphold the current laws to me.

http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-protest-ireland-liberalize-abortion-laws-231156198.html
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/17/world/europe/ireland-abortion-controversy/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular

[Abbey Marie]

And 'unless it infringes' is a synonym of 'with due regard'
What do you think 'with due regard' means?

I would argue that "with due regard" is a softer and more ambiguous term than "unless".
Unless is a rather definitive word of exclusion. With due regard can mean a ton of things.

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm going to side with Noir on this one......I think the doctor fucked up and tried to manufacture a defense under the current law....proabortionists have picked it up and are trying to use it to eliminate restrictions on abortion.....the simple fact is any intelligent person should have done something to save this woman's life, which I am sure has happened in the thousands of similar situations where the doctor DID save the mother's life and you heard nothing about it.......

[Noir]

I would argue that "with due regard" is a softer and more ambiguous term than "unless".
Unless is a rather definitive word of exclusion. With due regard can mean a ton of things.

Right, and even if i agree with you about the ambiguity -which i in no way do, 'unless' 'with due regard' and 'with respect to' are synonyms- But semantics aside: What exactly are the 'ton of other things' in this case?
The woman was in agony for 3 days, she was fully dilated (open wound) and leaking amniotic fluid, the 17 week old unborn was certain to die, and the only thing that could result from not performing a termination would be to put the womans health/life in greater danger.
Not to mention the psychological damage that would of been done to her, for being forced to endure a 3 day miscarriage, if she'd lived.

[Noir]

Why did you ignore the rest of my post which addresses the ambiguity in the law throughout the nation and covering the fact that not all areas have updated laws as demanded by the SC? And due regard means they should take into consideration the mothers life and the totality of the circumstances - and the law in that jurisdiction states that a doctor may go to jail if he makes that wrong "choice".

I can't speak for all Irish abortion law, but the relevant section to this case, is codified.


If you don't think the laws should be updated throughout the country to address these issues, so be it, but that seems to go against your stance that the wrong decision was made in this case. Hell, there are TONS of groups protesting in Ireland right now DEMANDING that laws be updated to prevent this from happening again. If the law was fine as-is, then why the cry for updates? These don't look like demands to uphold the current laws to me.

http://news.yahoo.com/thousands-protest-ireland-liberalize-abortion-laws-231156198.html
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/17/world/europe/ireland-abortion-controversy/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular

Maybe the law should be updated, however, it looks to me like the majority of the unrest/outrage is caused by a misunderstanding of what the law is.

Woman dies under doctors care.
Doctor blames law.
Public/Media outrage that law could lead to death of patient, demands that its changed.
Politicians talk of how terrible it all is, pass some newly worded law.
Everyone pats themselves on the back.
The politicians have passed a popular law, the public/media feel they were the driving force of the law, and the doctor isn't held responsible, after all it was the laws fault.

Maybe i'm being a tad too cynical, but i think the doctor has pulled a blinder in this one, and everyones too concerned about wanting to be part of a change to the law, as to actually looking at the law, and seeing it was really the doctor who made terrible decisions, day after day, that lead to his patients agonising and unnecessary death.

[jimnyc]

I'm going to side with Noir on this one......I think the doctor fucked up and tried to manufacture a defense under the current law....proabortionists have picked it up and are trying to use it to eliminate restrictions on abortion.....the simple fact is any intelligent person should have done something to save this woman's life, which I am sure has happened in the thousands of similar situations where the doctor DID save the mother's life and you heard nothing about it.......

Actually, the majority of people are using it to try and have the current laws changed to make it much easier for a doctor to make a decision to save the mothers life and to eliminate portions of the very strict anti-abortion laws. Unfortunately, the doctor couldn't have fucked up, as no matter what decision he made the law would have sided with him, hence the ambiguity, hence the need for more clarified law. If there were "thousands" of situations where a doctor went against the written law, I'd like to see just 3 of them posted here...

[jimnyc]

I can't speak for all Irish abortion law, but the relevant section to this case, is codified.



Maybe the law should be updated, however, it looks to me like the majority of the unrest/outrage is caused by a misunderstanding of what the law is.

Woman dies under doctors care.
Doctor blames law.
Public/Media outrage that law could lead to death of patient, demands that its changed.
Politicians talk of how terrible it all is, pass some newly worded law.
Everyone pats themselves on the back.
The politicians have passed a popular law, the public/media feel they were the driving force of the law, and the doctor isn't held responsible, after all it was the laws fault.

Maybe i'm being a tad too cynical, but i think the doctor has pulled a blinder in this one, and everyones too concerned about wanting to be part of a change to the law, as to actually looking at the law, and seeing it was really the doctor who made terrible decisions, day after day, that lead to his patients agonising and unnecessary death.

If what you're saying was true, he would have been arrested already, but it's not. But I'm not going to argue semantics anymore. The entire reason for multiple investigations in Ireland is directly because of the ambiguity. The supreme court directed everyone to update laws, and not all governments have done such to date, hence the ambiguity in different regions. Even the government in Ireland has now pledged to clarify the laws shortly to ensure situations such as this don't happen again. There would be no need for a government to get involved and clarify laws if there was no issue with those laws.

[Abbey Marie]

Right, and even if i agree with you about the ambiguity -which i in no way do, 'unless' 'with due regard' and 'with respect to' are synonyms- But semantics aside: What exactly are the 'ton of other things' in this case?
The woman was in agony for 3 days, she was fully dilated (open wound) and leaking amniotic fluid, the 17 week old unborn was certain to die, and the only thing that could result from not performing a termination would be to put the womans health/life in greater danger.
Not to mention the psychological damage that would of been done to her, for being forced to endure a 3 day miscarriage, if she'd lived.

Still disagree on the terminology. If I give regard to something, I am considering it. If I can't do something "unless", that is a strict exclusion.

As for what the "other things" are, I was talking generally, as in the wording of the law. Not about this specific case.

[PostmodernProphet]

Actually, the majority of people are using it to try and have the current laws changed to make it much easier for a doctor to make a decision to save the mothers life and to eliminate portions of the very strict anti-abortion laws. Unfortunately, the doctor couldn't have fucked up, as no matter what decision he made the law would have sided with him, hence the ambiguity, hence the need for more clarified law. If there were "thousands" of situations where a doctor went against the written law, I'd like to see just 3 of them posted here...

you see, you've just contradicted your own argument.......as you stated, "no matter what decision he made the law would have sided with him".......what more do you need beyond that to "make it much easier for a doctor to make a decision to save the mothers life"?......you don't need a different law, you just need a doctor who wasn't a fucking idiot.....

apparently, between 1967 and 1990 there were 151 abortions in Ireland done to save the life of a mother......also apparently, this is the first time that a woman died because there was not an abortion.....
http://www.spuc.org.uk/youth/student_info_on_abortion/mothers

[Noir]

If what you're saying was true, he would have been arrested already, but it's not. But I'm not going to argue semantics anymore. The entire reason for multiple investigations in Ireland is directly because of the ambiguity. The supreme court directed everyone to update laws, and not all governments have done such to date, hence the ambiguity in different regions. Even the government in Ireland has now pledged to clarify the laws shortly to ensure situations such as this don't happen again. There would be no need for a government to get involved and clarify laws if there was no issue with those laws.

Damn right he should of been arrested.

Though i guess you're right about the government...i mean why would an unpopular Irish government want to make a huge song and dance about creating/clarifying a law, when they don't actually have to do anything. Causing all that needless, positive publicity. It just doesn't make sense.

[jimnyc]

Too bad rhetoric does nothing to change the ambiguity in the laws and even the lawmakers and public now crying out for change, which will come. No charges have been given, at least as of yet, abortion is and will remain illegal, and the updated laws, when they come, should hopefully ensure a doctor doesn't have to risk arrest or loss of license in the future.

[Noir]

Too bad rhetoric does nothing to change the ambiguity in the laws and even the lawmakers and public now crying out for change, which will come. No charges have been given, at least as of yet, abortion is and will remain illegal, and the updated laws, when they come, should hopefully ensure a doctor doesn't have to risk arrest or loss of license in the future.

Yeah, like in the hundreds of other cases over the past two decades that have resulted in doctors being arrested and losing their licences because they misreading the totally ambiguous law, and carried out an abortion when the mothers life was at risk.

[jimnyc]

Yeah, like in the hundreds of other cases over the past two decades that have resulted in doctors being arrested and losing their licences because they misreading the totally ambiguous law, and carried out an abortion when the mothers life was at risk.

Like I've said repeatedly, and YOU should know best, it's common knowledge that various governments have not updated the laws as per the SC demands. Maybe they were all in different areas, I don't know. But the mere fact that different areas have different laws is disturbing enough. Why certain government haven't updated the laws is beyond me, but they need to get with the program, and that's what so many are protesting about.


Twenty years ago, the Irish Supreme Court ruled abortions are allowed when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. But the ruling was never been enacted into law, meaning there is little clarity for doctors or patients as to when an abortion can and can't take place.

It is this Supreme Court ruling that some Irish people now want made into law.

So what you've posted repeatedly, about the mother having the rights and they can terminate - IS NOT law in all areas. I agree it should be, but until such time the law is enacted, doctors in those areas are at risk if they perform the procedure.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/17/world/europe/ireland-abortion-controversy/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_mostpopular+%28RSS% 3A+Most+Popular%29

[Noir]

And it is apparently not common knowledge (in as much as its not getting a breath of attention in the media) that the statute was put to referendum, approved, and codified, in 1983.


In 1983 the Irish electorate approved Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland by referendum. It inserted the following paragraph into 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, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Using this amendment, doctors have been able to perform abortions when the mothers life was at risk for three decades. The this moron comes along...

[jimnyc]

And it is apparently not common knowledge (in as much as its not getting a breath of attention in the media) that the statute was put to referendum, approved, and codified, in 1983.



Using this amendment, doctors have been able to perform abortions when the mothers life was at risk for three decades. The this moron comes along...

Interesting and odd them, that the government pledges to update the laws, the parents of the girl who died are complaining about the law not being updated, citizens marching to have the laws update - and it's all for naught, as they're all too ignorant to realize it's a done deal already? Are you telling me all the people in Ireland are that dense, including the government, and they are all oblivious to what the laws are? Even the legal experts in Ireland have been chiming in and explaining the discrepancies, and what they think needs updating, and they are oblivious to the law as well? I suppose nothing needs clarification then, just the people of Ireland are all dense, including the government and all the legal experts. Don't feel bad though, as it's catching on around the world, as every legal expert from every nation I have seen chime in thus far also thinks they need to update and clarify laws so that this can be avoided in the future.


Ireland's constitution officially bans abortion, but a 1992 Supreme Court ruling found it should be legalized for situations when the woman's life is at risk from continuing the pregnancy. Five governments since have refused to pass a law resolving the confusion, leaving Irish hospitals reluctant to terminate pregnancies except in the most obviously life-threatening circumstances.

I suppose the politicians that refuse to pass laws the not clarify things should be in prison then.

[Noir]

Interesting and odd them, that the government pledges to update the laws, the parents of the girl who died are complaining about the law not being updated, citizens marching to have the laws update - and it's all for naught, as they're all too ignorant to realize it's a done deal already? Are you telling me all the people in Ireland are that dense, including the government, and they are all oblivious to what the laws are? Even the legal experts in Ireland have been chiming in and explaining the discrepancies, and what they think needs updating, and they are oblivious to the law as well? I suppose nothing needs clarification then, just the people of Ireland are all dense, including the government and all the legal experts. Don't feel bad though, as it's catching on around the world, as every legal expert from every nation I have seen chime in thus far also thinks they need to update and clarify laws so that this can be avoided in the future.

I suppose the politicians that refuse to pass laws the not clarify things should be in prison then.

Yes. Of the all the people i've spoken to about this, not one had knowledge of the amendment. And after a brief discussion about it with them, the overall response is 'why isn't that on the news'

The whole thing is a doctors defence that's spiralled into a public outcry to fix something that isn't broken, and everyone's too busy trying to be the highest of the high horses, to point out that her death was a result of a doctors incompetence.

[jimnyc]

Yes. Of the all the people i've spoken to about this, not one had knowledge of the amendment. And after a brief discussion about it with them, the overall response is 'why isn't that on the news'

The whole thing is a doctors defence that's spiralled into a public outcry to fix something that isn't broken, and everyone's too busy trying to be the highest of the high horses, to point out that her death was a result of a doctors incompetence.

Ireland's constitution officially bans abortion, but a 1992 Supreme Court ruling found it should be legalized for situations when the woman's life is at risk from continuing the pregnancy. Five governments since have refused to pass a law resolving the confusion,

Odd that only a certain amount of governments have passed laws but 5 of them haven't, including where this case is located. I wonder why the other areas were so dumb as to pass laws if it were unnecessary?

[jimnyc]

There is a need to bring “legal clarity” to Ireland’s abortion law following the death of a woman allegedly refused a pregnancy termination by doctors while she endured a miscarriage over a three day period, the government has said.

“We need to ensure that in this country we do not have a doubt which arises in a hospital in a set of circumstances which puts a mother’s life at risk,” Eamon Gilmore, Ireland’s deputy prime minister, told parliament on Thursday. “The government is going to deal with this issue.”

It has also prompted international criticism of the country, which has failed to implement a 2010 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights for Dublin to introduce clear rules to enable women to have abortions when their life is at risk during pregnancy.

Abortion is one of the most deeply divisive issues in Ireland, which has held five bitterly fought referendums on the topic since 1983. It is one of only two EU countries (the other is Malta) where women cannot access an abortion even when their lives are endangered by a pregnancy, suicide or medical conditions.

The effective ban on abortion in Ireland remains in place despite a ruling by the Irish Supreme Court in 1992 that abortion was legal under limited circumstances. This ruling was given in the so called “X” case, in which the Irish authorities imposed an injunction preventing a 14-year-old girl who was pregnant after being raped from travelling abroad for an abortion.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6b74e8ee-2f3a-11e2-b88b-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2CsdTVf34

[jimnyc]

Odd that this would be ruled as such...


After several challenges, the European Court of Human Rights (http://www.csmonitor.com/tags/topic/European+Court+of+Human+Rights) ruled in 2010 that Ireland must clarify its position.

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Latest-News-Wires/2012/1115/Ireland-We-will-clarify-abortion-law-to-avoid-tragedy-repeat-video

[jimnyc]

Successive governments fearing a backlash in a mainly Catholic nation have avoided introducing laws to fasten down the meaning of a 1992 Supreme Court ruling granting women the right to an abortion where the mother’s life is at risk. Deputy Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore told parliament yesterday the government won’t “ignore and neglect” the issue anymore.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-11-15/death-of-indian-woman-forces-ireland-to-confront-law-on-abortion

[jimnyc]

The Irish government says the country’s stance on abortion needs clarifying after the death of a pregnant woman in hospital.

Savita Halappanavar was allegedly refused a termination while she was enduring a miscarriage in Galway.
Two investigations are underway after her husband claimed the reasons doctors gave were that a foetal heartbeat had been detected, and Ireland was a “Catholic country”.
“I have said very clearly that we need to bring legal clarity to this issue. We need to ensure that in this country that we do not have a doubt which arises in a hospital in a set of circumstances which puts a mother’s life at risk,” Deputy Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore told parliament.
The 31 year-old woman’s death prompted thousands to protest in Dublin on Wednesday.
The Irish Supreme Court ruled 20 years ago that abortion was legal in limited circumstances. But a European ruling two years ago said Ireland still needed to introduce clear rules.
Critics say doctors are left in legal limbo.



http://www.euronews.com/2012/11/16/ireland-vows-to-clarify-abortion-law-after-woman-s-death/

[jimnyc]

NEW DELHI — The parents of an Indian woman who suffered a miscarriage and died after being refused an abortion in an Irish hospital slammed Ireland's abortion laws Thursday.

...

Ireland's constitution officially bans abortion, but a 1992 Supreme Court ruling said the procedure should be legalized for situations when the woman's life is at risk from continuing the pregnancy. Five governments since have refused to pass a law resolving the confusion, leaving Irish hospitals reluctant to terminate pregnancies except in the most obviously life-threatening circumstances.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49839922/ns/health/t/parents-slam-irish-abortion-laws-after-woman-dies/#.UK0UkIZBE0s

[Noir]

Ireland's constitution officially bans abortion, but a 1992 Supreme Court ruling found it should be legalized for situations when the woman's life is at risk from continuing the pregnancy. Five governments since have refused to pass a law resolving the confusion,

Odd that only a certain amount of governments have passed laws but 5 of them haven't, including where this case is located. I wonder why the other areas were so dumb as to pass laws if it were unnecessary?

Irelands constitution protects the rights of the unborn, with regard to the mothers right to life. Odd that it has never been a problem, until a doctor screwed up, and blamed the law that had been working for decades.

Also, Ireland only has one government, when they say 'five governments didn't stamp the SC' they mean five national term governments, presumably ghere have been 5 governments since 1992.

[jimnyc]

Irelands constitution protects the rights of the unborn, with regard to the mothers right to life. Odd that it has never been a problem, until a doctor screwed up, and blamed the law that had been working for decades.

Also, Ireland only has one government, when they say 'five governments didn't stamp the SC' they mean five national term governments, presumably ghere have been 5 governments since 1992.

Ireland has 34 local governments. I'll defer to your expertise though, even though Ireland lawmakers and experts throughout the world, all of whom can understand law, agree it needs updating and clarification.

[Noir]

Ireland has 34 local governments. I'll defer to your expertise though, even though Ireland lawmakers and experts throughout the world, all of whom can understand law, agree it needs updating and clarification.

Its has county and city councils, not governments. The powers the councils extend to bin collections, and running local bus schemes and youth groups etc, not mandating abortion law.

At the very least the 'new laws' will mean that in future, and incident like this will punish the negligent doctor. He's just lucky he's got off (so far) with this one.

[jimnyc]

Its has county and city councils, not governments. The powers the councils extend to bin collections, and running local bus schemes and youth groups etc, not mandating abortion law.

At the very least the 'new laws' will mean that in future, and incident like this will punish the negligent doctor. He's just lucky he's got off (so far) with this one.

What do you call the people that make the local laws, ordinances and such? Even though we have counties, cities and villages - they are still called "government" as they govern the local areas.

[Abbey Marie]

Its has county and city councils, not governments. The powers the councils extend to bin collections, and running local bus schemes and youth groups etc, not mandating abortion law.

At the very least the 'new laws' will mean that in future, and incident like this will punish the negligent doctor. He's just lucky he's got off (so far) with this one.

Noir, I assume you are discussing criminal liability. I would assume the spouse can sue the doctor for damages?

[Noir]

What do you call the people that make the local laws, ordinances and such? Even though we have counties, cities and villages - they are still called "government" as they govern the local areas.

I can't think of any region specific laws, so id make an educated guess that there is no group with such powers. Ireland isnt exactly large by pollution, or geography, to warrant such groups.

In any case, the '5 governments' referred to with regards to this story, means the National Government, not any local ones.

[Noir]

Noir, I assume you are discussing criminal liability. I would assume the spouse can sue the doctor for damages?

I'm not too sure of the laws regarding suing individuals, but i would guess he will
Push to sue the doctor or the hospital, yes.

[jimnyc]

If no need for updating and clarification, why would the Ireland court of human rights demand that Ireland must clarify? Wouldn't they just point to the current laws and leave it at that? Odd.

[jimnyc]

More reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20353104

[Noir]

More reading: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20353104

This story is about Northern Ireland. Not Ireland.

Though the sentence of interest is "The country's constitution has been amended to allow for an abortion when a woman's life is at risk - but the issue is very complex."

Now helpfully (and predictably) they don't actually state what the 'very complex' problems are. What they do however state, with definite fact, is that written into the Irish Constitution, a woman is allowed to have an abortion if her life is at risk.

So there is a constitutional right.
Over 100 abortions have been carried out when the womans life was in danger over the past few decades.
Yet suddenly now it is a very complex problem...

[jimnyc]

I know, crazy ain't it? The entire world sees it clearly, but the human rights division, legal scholars and such still call for new laws and clarification. Someone should call them and direct them to you so that they'll finally learn the laws!

[jimnyc]

Like I said too, needs updating and clarification.


Twenty years ago this month, the Irish Supreme Court ruled that there was a constitutional right to an abortion where there was a “real and substantial risk” to the life of the mother (the girl involved was suicidal). Despite debate in the news media to mark the 20th anniversary, no legislation has been drawn up to outline when a woman is entitled to a legal abortion in Ireland, so the law remains unclear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/world/europe/22iht-letter22.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Noir]

I know, crazy ain't it? The entire world sees it clearly, but the human rights division, legal scholars and such still call for new laws and clarification. Someone should call them and direct them to you so that they'll finally learn the laws!

What's even crazier, is that these laws, which are filthy as mud, ambiguous, and bafflingly complex, have been used for the past 30 years without a single newsworthy story.

So for 30 years, irish doctors have been able to administer abortions -when the mothers life is at risk, as is her constitutional right - without a problem.

Yet now, when a doctor ignores the well being of his patient, and denies her a constitutional right, resulting in her death. Suddenly the laws are all but unworkable.

I know you think its in the docs favour that 5 successive governments didn't rubber stamp whatever the SC said. But i see it in quite a different light. If a change was needed, and the laws were extremely complex etc, it wouldn't of taken 30 years for a problem.

[jimnyc]

The UN apparently can't understand either! LOL

http://www.thejournal.ie/irelands-abortion-laws-under-un-spotlight-241399-Sep2011/

Ireland’s human rights reputation has been tarnished by the failure to enact legislation to clarify existing laws. We hope that the Minister for Justice will accept the genuine concern expressed by other UN member states about the human rights implications of Ireland’s restrictive abortion laws and make a commitment to bring Irish abortion laws in line with international human rights standards and obligations.

The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the UN Human Rights Committee, the UN Committee Against Torture, the Human Rights Commissioner of the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights have all told Ireland to review its laws which criminalise abortion.

Among the questions submitted to Ireland about its human rights record are ones from the UK, Denmark, Finland and Netherlands regarding its abortion laws.
Several more states will make recommendations calling Ireland to account for the State’s contentious abortion laws.

[Noir]

Its also worthy mentioning that she died of septicaemia, that isn't something that kills you in minutes, it develops over hours and days (rapid, but not without warning signs) at most it would appear 3 days in this case.

During that time she would if been displaying a fever, chills, shock, rashes etc. none of which seemed to concern the doctor.

[jimnyc]

you see, you've just contradicted your own argument.......as you stated, "no matter what decision he made the law would have sided with him".......what more do you need beyond that to "make it much easier for a doctor to make a decision to save the mothers life"?......you don't need a different law, you just need a doctor who wasn't a fucking idiot.....

apparently, between 1967 and 1990 there were 151 abortions in Ireland done to save the life of a mother......also apparently, this is the first time that a woman died because there was not an abortion.....
http://www.spuc.org.uk/youth/student_info_on_abortion/mothers


This story is about Northern Ireland. Not Ireland.

Though the sentence of interest is "The country's constitution has been amended to allow for an abortion when a woman's life is at risk - but the issue is very complex."

Now helpfully (and predictably) they don't actually state what the 'very complex' problems are. What they do however state, with definite fact, is that written into the Irish Constitution, a woman is allowed to have an abortion if her life is at risk.

So there is a constitutional right.
Over 100 abortions have been carried out when the womans life was in danger over the past few decades.
Yet suddenly now it is a very complex problem...

You keep referring to PMP's article, about the abortions performed to save a woman's life, but that article and number refer to the entire UK: (you'll see the same stats in all these articles)

http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/Facts-abortion-debate/story-15991757-detail/story.html
http://www.lifenews.com/2007/07/03/nat-3218/
http://www.collegeplus.org/media/essays/essay16
http://politicsontoast.com/2011/09/07/abortion-murder-as-contraception/

Or just do a search on the stats: "Between 1967 and 1990, only 151 abortions have been carried out to save the mother's life" and look at all of the results for a better picture.

So, with that said, do you have actual stats to backup the "over 100 abortions have been carried out..." ?

[Noir]

You keep referring to PMP's article, about the abortions performed to save a woman's life, but that article and number refer to the entire UK: (you'll see the same stats in all these articles)

http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/Facts-abortion-debate/story-15991757-detail/story.html
http://www.lifenews.com/2007/07/03/nat-3218/
http://www.collegeplus.org/media/essays/essay16
http://politicsontoast.com/2011/09/07/abortion-murder-as-contraception/

Or just do a search on the stats: "Between 1967 and 1990, only 151 abortions have been carried out to save the mother's life" and look at all of the results for a better picture.

So, with that said, do you have actual stats to backup the "over 100 abortions have been carried out..." ?

Fair dues, i'll look for another number, though i must say that looks a very small number for england and wales, given there are something like a few dozen abortions in Northern Ireland per year for the mothers health.

[jimnyc]

Fair dues, i'll look for another number, though i must say that looks a very small number for england and wales, given there are something like a few dozen abortions in Northern Ireland per year for the mothers health.

I tried doing a search on what PMP posted so that I could do a little research on prior cases and why and if they were performed, and that's when I found it to be a total for all of UK. It may look small, but it's all over the place, so I don't think it's a lie. There are tons of sites with this statistic, and statistics for abortions in total, but I can't find anything about strictly Ireland and abortions performed when the Mom's life was in danger.

But again, you say now, as opposed to the hundreds you said earlier, that it's now a few dozen in NI, where the laws are just as strict. Do you have stats for that I can peek at?

[jimnyc]

Here's a glimpse into the miniscule times abortions have been given to save the mothers life - 6 out of every 100,000.


Just 6 in every 100,000 abortions being performed in England and Wales were undertaken to save the mother from a life-threatening situation, a new report has found. That means in 99.994 percent of abortions the baby was terminated even though the mother's life was not immediately at risk.

The new report issued by the British government highlights the alarming number of legal abortions conducted over recent decades with with only a tiny fraction being conducted to save the life of the mother.

According to the figures, which were produced in response to a Parliamentary Question by Lord Alton of Liverpool, there were 6.4 million abortions performed on residents of England and Wales between 1968 and 2011.

http://global.christianpost.com/news/only-6-in-every-100000-abortions-in-england-performed-to-save-life-of-the-mother-79815/

[Abbey Marie]

You keep referring to PMP's article, about the abortions performed to save a woman's life, but that article and number refer to the entire UK: (you'll see the same stats in all these articles)

http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/Facts-abortion-debate/story-15991757-detail/story.html
http://www.lifenews.com/2007/07/03/nat-3218/
http://www.collegeplus.org/media/essays/essay16
http://politicsontoast.com/2011/09/07/abortion-murder-as-contraception/

Or just do a search on the stats: "Between 1967 and 1990, only 151 abortions have been carried out to save the mother's life" and look at all of the results for a better picture.

So, with that said, do you have actual stats to backup the "over 100 abortions have been carried out..." ?

Isn't it amazing how few abortions are necessary for those situations? Yet the pro-abortion folks would have us believe this is a major issue.

[Robert A Whit]

The E. Coli is a separate issue, that had no bearing on the Doctors refusal to let her terminate the pregnancy, rather than suffer a 3 day miscarriage that resulted in blood poisoning.

Whether or not she had E. Coli, she would of died because of her doctors actions.

She did not want to terminate her pregnancy, she expected that the doctor would.

Doctors take an oath to do no harm.

Like it or not, democrats refuse to believe that the life inside the woman is not her life, it is a different life. Just as your life is not the life of your parents. They have their own lives. Proof is my parents both died yet here I am still living.

I wanted to comment on the blood poisoning but had put that out of my mind. Glad you brought it up.

I believe one can be treated for both E Coli and blood poisoning. I thought those doctors in the UK were up to par.

I guess in that case they were not.

[Robert A Whit]

I am sure doctors are so advanced that they can treat E Coli in the case of the Irish lassie that died of complications having to do with a dead child in her.

This is what to do with blood poisoning. I cut and paste some of the article thus one needs to study a lot more to understand this.

==================
Blood poisoning - Treating sepsisNHS Choices Medical Reference
http://img.webmd.boots.com/dtmcms/live/webmd_uk/consumer_assets/site_images/logos/vendor/nhs_choices_logo.gif (http://www.debatepolicy.com/click?url=http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/blood-poisoning/Pages/Treatment.aspx)


If your sepsis is detected early enough and has not affected organ or tissue function (uncomplicated sepsis), it may be possible to treat the condition at home. You will be prescribed a course of antibiotic tablets.
If the sepsis is severe or you develop septic shock (http://www.webmd.boots.com/a-to-z-guides/tc/septic-shock-introduction), you will need emergency hospital treatment, usually in an intensive care (http://www.webmd.boots.com/a-to-z-guides/tc/intensive-care-introduction) unit (ICU). ICUs are able to support any affected body function, such as breathing or blood circulation, while the medical staff focus on treating the infection.
Treatment of severe sepsis will vary for each patient depending on the initial infection, the organs affected and the extent of damage.
AntibioticsSevere sepsis is treated with intravenous antibiotics (given directly into a vein). There will usually not be time to wait until a specific type of infection has been identified, so 'broad-spectrum' antibiotics will initially be given. Broad-spectrum antibiotics are designed to work against a wide range of known infectious bacteria, and can also treat some fungal infections.
Once a specific bacterium has been identified, a more 'focused' antibiotic can be used. This has the advantage of reducing the chance of the bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics.
Intravenous antibiotics usually have to be given for 7 to 10 days.
If the sepsis is caused by a virus, antibiotics will not work. However, it is likely that antibiotics will be started anyway. This is because it would be too dangerous to delay antibiotic treatment until an accurate diagnosis is made. You will then need to wait until your body develops resistance to the effects of the virus. In some cases, antiviral medication may be given.

[AllieBaba]

Septicemia is deadly and you can't even get a tooth pulled, if the tooth is causing the infection, before it's treated because of the chance of further complications.

So a woman who presents with septicemia, who is pregnant with a baby that still has a heart beat, is probably not going to be put in the stirrups until her septicemia has been successfully treated....if she had back pain there is the chance that her kidneys were already failing.

Doctors will not perform invasive procedures on a patient with blood poisoning. You don't "treat" blood poisoning via surgery/abortion. The chance of having the infection quickly spread to the organs is increased by such procedures..not reduced.

So if they knew she was septic, they would not have performed the abortion until the sepsis was successfully treated, if the baby's heart was still beating, because of the INCREASED RISK to the mother.

[Noir]

Septicemia is deadly and you can't even get a tooth pulled, if the tooth is causing the infection, before it's treated because of the chance of further complications.

So a woman who presents with septicemia, who is pregnant with a baby that still has a heart beat, is probably not going to be put in the stirrups until her septicemia has been successfully treated....if she had back pain there is the chance that her kidneys were already failing.

Doctors will not perform invasive procedures on a patient with blood poisoning. You don't "treat" blood poisoning via surgery/abortion. The chance of having the infection quickly spread to the organs is increased by such procedures..not reduced.

So if they knew she was septic, they would not have performed the abortion until the sepsis was successfully treated, if the baby's heart was still beating, because of the INCREASED RISK to the mother.

I've asked my gf to ask her mum (she is a natal nurse) as i don't know enough about abortion during blood posioning...but it looks pretty certain that the poisoning came from the miscarriaging uterus. If that is the case then abortion, to get rid of the cause of the poisoning, would be the only way to save the womans life, as it happens, she was refused that chance.

[Noir]

She did not want to terminate her pregnancy, she expected that the doctor would.

Doctors take an oath to do no harm.

Like it or not, democrats refuse to believe that the life inside the woman is not her life, it is a different life. Just as your life is not the life of your parents. They have their own lives. Proof is my parents both died yet here I am still living.

I wanted to comment on the blood poisoning but had put that out of my mind. Glad you brought it up.

I believe one can be treated for both E Coli and blood poisoning. I thought those doctors in the UK were up to par.

I guess in that case they were not.

Ofcourse you can be treated for both, she was treated for neither, because her doctor would not carry out an abortion that the woman had a constitutional right to. Which would then of put her in a position to be treated for her blood poisoning etc.

This doctor caused great harm indeed, by doing nothing.

[jimnyc]

I've asked my gf to ask her mum (she is a natal nurse) as i don't know enough about abortion during blood posioning...but it looks pretty certain that the poisoning came from the miscarriaging uterus. If that is the case then abortion, to get rid of the cause of the poisoning, would be the only way to save the womans life, as it happens, she was refused that chance.

Anything on these "hundreds" or even "dozens" of instances where abortions have been used to save the mothers life in Ireland? I'd like to compare the instances they were used to this current one, and also show that this case isn't as you stated - that they've done it hundreds of times before and now it's suddenly a problem. I disagree with that statement.

[Noir]

Anything on these "hundreds" or even "dozens" of instances where abortions have been used to save the mothers life in Ireland? I'd like to compare the instances they were used to this current one, and also show that this case isn't as you stated - that they've done it hundreds of times before and now it's suddenly a problem. I disagree with that statement.

Its apparently more difficult to get numbers for Ireland, than it is the UK, i've no idea why. They must publish these numbers somewhere.

Edit - Went looking on the Irish freedom of Information website to make a request, but there are 10 different health authorities and each request costs between 10 and 15 euros. Talk about balls :|

[jimnyc]

Its apparently more difficult to get numbers for Ireland, than it is the UK, i've no idea why. They must publish these numbers somewhere.

Ok, never mind complete stats then, let's just post a handful of other instances where the doctors in Ireland performed abortions for this reason. You make it sound as if they did this often and it was never an issue until THIS doctor did so. My contention is that the laws need clarification and updating (as does the country of Ireland, legal scholars, the UN...). But anyway, I would like to review a handful of these cases to make a comparison as to why they were actually performed compared to this case, and why the laws need updating/clarification. Being that abortion is illegal in the country, but for the reason specified (although not very clear), you would think these other cases would be somewhat notable, or some record of them or something for us to compare to. If nothing for us to compare to, then I think it was a tad premature to say it's never been a problem for so many years until THIS doctor, short of ANY proof of this being the case.