woman dies for want of a abortion

[Hardy]

There we go again - "Irish catholic law". There is no such thing, but you would never think so as media and commentators merrily commentate as if there was. The definition of a lie seems to have become uncertain.

[deiseach]

There we go again - "Irish catholic law". There is no such thing, but you would never think so as media and commentators merrily commentate as if there was. The definition of a lie seems to have become uncertain.

In fairness, is it not shorthand for "Irish law influenced by lobbying from the Roman Catholic Church?"

[Hardy]

I'm sure it is, but it's very misleading and damaging shorthand, which is my point.

By the way, on reading her post, that Ob/Gyn's offering can be dismissed, as she ignores the most likely explanation in offering her "only three plausible explanations" for the outcome.

[deiseach]

I'm sure it is, but it's very misleading and damaging shorthand, which is my point.

Point taken.

By the way, on reading her post, that Ob/Gyn's offering can be dismissed, as she ignores the most likely explanation in offering her "only three plausible explanations" for the outcome.

Which is?

[Main Street]

Afaiu, the Irish law does not hinder the application of medical best practice in this case, aborting the dying foetus in a woman whose medical condition was deteriorating by the hour.

[Hardy]

By the way, on reading her post, that Ob/Gyn's offering can be dismissed, as she ignores the most likely explanation in offering her "only three plausible explanations" for the outcome.

Which is?

It's close to her first explanation, but without the propagandist rhetoric.

The medical team had no law to follow, as the X case judgement modifies interpretation of the 19th century law, but this modified interpretation has not been defined in legislation and therefore the medical team considered themselves having to act as lawyers and interpret a supreme court judgement in making a medical decision.

[Rudi]

Good article here from a leading OB/GYN:
http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

***

Good article, some of the comments to this particular article irk me, particularly the drivel wrote by Kelly Davis Jordan. " the religious, right wing, anti choice people are very vocal and obnoxoius, .." I really hate this sh"te talk, freedom of speech is ok for lefties provided you agree with their theories, ideas etc. I would be pro life in my thinking, in this case the life of the mother comes first, as the pregnancy, (as the facts are presented) did not seem viable. I thought this country was legally bound to carry out terminations in cases where the mothers life was at risk?

[Main Street]

Good article here from a leading OB/GYN:
http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

***

Good article, some of the comments to this particular article irk me, particularly the drivel wrote by Kelly Davis Jordan. " the religious, right wing, anti choice people are very vocal and obnoxoius, .." I really hate this sh"te talk, freedom of speech is ok for lefties provided you agree with their theories, ideas etc. I would be pro life in my thinking, in this case the life of the mother comes first, as the pregnancy, (as the facts are presented) did not seem viable. I thought this country was legally bound to carry out terminations in cases where the mothers life was at risk?

There is a strong case of medical malpractice to answer for.
but it  remains to be seen if it was just plain old quackery (common medical malpractice)  or a deliberate decision taken to do malpractice - hiding behind a subjective false interpretation of the law.
I veer towards the latter,  because it's hard to comprehend that any medic would ignore every alarm bell ringing at top volume and make a string of bad judgement calls.

[cadence]

By the way, on reading her post, that Ob/Gyn's offering can be dismissed, as she ignores the most likely explanation in offering her "only three plausible explanations" for the outcome.

Which is?

It's close to her first explanation, but without the propagandist rhetoric.

The medical team had no law to follow, as the X case judgement modifies interpretation of the 19th century law, but this modified interpretation has not been defined in legislation and therefore the medical team considered themselves having to act as lawyers and interpret a supreme court judgement in making a medical decision.

can you post up the judgement of the x case that modifies interpretation of the offences against the person act 1861 please? the only modifications i can find are the uk ones to S58...

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



few things i'd like clarity on are, that since the ruling below, what have been the changes to law or to guidelines that make it possible for a woman to have a termination when her life was endangered? if there have been no changes, then it is still impossible for a woman, especially in such an emergency as this, to attain an abortion without having to go to court to seek it. the echr found it wasn't possible for C to have a termination without breaching article 8, but the victim in this case never even got the chance trade her article 8 rights to save her life given the emergency nature of her health situation. she was admitted on the saturday, so it would seem to be perfectly reasonable to say that there would be very little chance for her and her family of figuring the complex legal issues and frameworks needed to take it to court to get a termination in time to save her life.

the court ruling by echr was 2010, it's nearly 2 years ago. politicians making statements about doctors/hospitals need to have clarity on what to do in these situations and let's wait for the report and the findings of any investigations is a bit rich. they were told specifically what the broad issues were that they needed to legislate for and provide guidance on  on 16/12/2010. unless they can show that since the 16/12/2010 echr ruling that they have clarified what doctors and hospitals should do, either through new legislation or statutory guidance, they have just sat on it and did sfa. do they think we're idiots or something.


A,B,C v Ireland (application no: 25579/05) Grand Chamber 16/12/2010

Executive Summary                                                                                                                      In Irish law, abortion is prohibited under sections 58 and 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. Under Article 40.3.3 of the Irish 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 to respect the mother in national laws. In the X case in 1992, the Supreme Court held that abortion was lawful in Ireland, if there was a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother. No legislation regulating that right was ever enacted, a fact regretted by the Supreme Court in its 1992 Judgment.

A and B travelled to the United Kingdom for abortions for reasons of health and/ or wellbeing. C who was in remission from cancer, argued before the Court that, although she believed her pregnancy put her life at risk, there was no procedure by which she could have established whether she qualified for a lawful abortion in Ireland on grounds of the risk to her life. She therefore travelled to the UK for an abortion. All three applicants claimed that the restriction on abortion in Ireland violated their right to respect for their private life under Article 8 of the ECHR.

With regard to the first and second applicants, A and B, the Court observed that the consensus  which existed among the majority of the members States of the Council of Europe allowing broader access to abortion than under Irish law was not sufficient to narrow the broad "margin of appreciation" which the State enjoyed on the issue of abortion.
Having regard to the constitutionally protected right to travel and the availability of appropriate pre- and post-abortion medical care in Ireland, as well as to the fact that the impugned prohibition in Ireland on abortion for health or well-being reasons was based on the moral values of the Irish people the Court concluded that, the existing prohibition on abortion in Ireland struck a fair balance between the right of A and B to respect for their private lives and the rights invoked on behalf of the unborn.
The Court thus found that there had been no violation of Article 8 of the ECHR by eleven votes to six.
With regard to C, the Court considered that the establishment of any risk to her life concerned essential aspects of her right to respect for her private life. The only non-judicial means existing in Ireland for determining such a risk, the ordinary medical consultation between a woman and her doctor, was deemed to be ineffective by the Court. The uncertainty surrounding such a process was influenced by the criminal provisions of the 1861 Act which put both doctors and women in fear of possible criminal prosecution. Recourse to the constitutional courts was also deemed ineffective, as the courts were not appropriate for the primary determination of whether a woman qualified for a lawful abortion. It was likewise inappropriate to ask women to pursue such complex constitutional proceedings when their right to have an abortion if pregnancy posed a threat to their life was not disputed. In any event, it was unclear how the courts were to enforce any mandatory order requiring doctors to carry out an abortion, given the lack of clear information from the Government to the Court as regards lawful abortions currently carried out in Ireland.
The Court concluded that existing procedures where ineffective to allow C to establish her right to a lawful abortion in Ireland given the risk to her life. Moreover, there was no explanation why the existing constitutional right had not been implemented to date despite recognition that further legal clarity was required. The Court thus concluded unanimously that Ireland had breached C's right under Article 8 given the State's failure to secure effective respect for her private life by reason of the absence of any implementing legislative or regulatory regime providing an accessible and effective procedure by which she could have established whether she qualified for a lawful abortion in Ireland.

[Wildweasel74]

it be a while before we know who is to blame, but like any workplace , doctors etc will cover their ass, so there is no come back if something goes wrong as in this case. Hide behind policy, law, procedures, etc. seen it in my workplace all the time, even when the right decision is obvious, more time than enough, no body will make the decision, afraid of the comeback from making the right/wrong decision, possible loss of job etc. When the woman requested the abortion if she was fearful of possible harm to her, she should have got one, commonsense. We don't live in a world where commonsense is the norm or things are all black and white. Religion and what people believe affects everyday life. Unfortunately here for all the wrong reasons.

[armaghniac]

It seems to me, without having substantial useful knowledge of the situation, that this is only marginally related to Catholicism.

It is mostly a case of medical negligence. But it is also a testament to the Irish irresponsibility in the affairs of government. where situations are routinely allowed to persist which are entirely contradictory. This has nothing to do with abortion per se, Irish people will criticise expenditure cutbacks while refusing to pay more taxes or establish government policies without any obvious way of carrying them out. While some people had reasoned objections to the recent Children's referendum, many others did bother voting, while others voted against because they were pissed off the government, or they were making some statement about Dublin being far from Donegal. With this kind of carryon in referendums government chickened out having one on the controversial subject of abortion.

[stew]

Good article here from a leading OB/GYN:
http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

***

Good article, some of the comments to this particular article irk me, particularly the drivel wrote by Kelly Davis Jordan. " the religious, right wing, anti choice people are very vocal and obnoxoius, .." I really hate this sh"te talk, freedom of speech is ok for lefties provided you agree with their theories, ideas etc. I would be pro life in my thinking, in this case the life of the mother comes first, as the pregnancy, (as the facts are presented) did not seem viable. I thought this country was legally bound to carry out terminations in cases where the mothers life was at risk?

I am pro life for want of a better term but ffs when a child has no chance of survival then take care of the mother, this is shocking.

In this case.........if she was far enough long and got that news I would want the wife to live and although abortion is repugnant to me in cases like this common sense must prevail, in this case it didnt.

In the case were a woman is in mortal danger I feel strongly that she should choose what path to take, in cases of rape the same standard applies, that said women that simply get pregnant and decide to have one when the baby is fully formed are a disaster, I will never understand them.

[johnneycool]

As this woman died over a month ago, are these reports and investigations only happening now due to the shít storm her husband has had to raise in the media?

[cicfada]

You can be guaranteed that these investigations are only happening because of the media storm over this!! Consider the fact that nothing will be done until these inquiries are over as well which will be in 3 or 4 months time and by then the  publicity will have died  down!!  If it turns out that she passed away as a result of a refusal to medically terminate her unviable pregnancy, then the pressure on the gov will increase rapidly and it  will split the gov down the middle seeing as Labour have committed to legislating for a pro-choice agenda!The image of this country world wide  will take a hammering for sure  and  it sure puts the "gathering" into perspective!

[AQMP]

As this woman died over a month ago, are these reports and investigations only happening now due to the shít storm her husband has had to raise in the media?

Possibly.  She died on 28th October and her husband took her body back to India.  He was possibly told the hospital would carry out an investigation into what happened.