The Late Late show

Started by T O Hare, January 30, 2009, 01:50:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

omaghjoe

Quote from: sid waddell on April 30, 2018, 11:29:04 AM
Quote from: Hound on April 30, 2018, 10:31:58 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 30, 2018, 09:31:06 AM
Quote from: Hound on April 30, 2018, 09:21:16 AM
I thought Savita was a case of medical negligence rather than the 8th? Albeit a mis-reading of the 8th seems to have caused it. There have been many many women who received the treatment that Savita required, and very few who died from lack of it.

Unfortunately, it's nearly every day that there's a report in the paper about a compensation case against the HSE for medical incompetence in some hospital or another leading to death or life altering circumstances
The 8th Amendment enshrines medical negligence in the constitution.

A woman cannot get essential healthcare when there is a threat to her health.

The threat to her health has to develop into a threat to her life.

Until it's too late, in other words.

Essential healthcare in Savita's case was an abortion. She couldn't get one. If she had, she'd be alive.

The 8th Amendment is barbaric.
I'm voting Yes, but I disagree with you using the tragic Savita case. She may not be the only one, but she's the only one I'm aware of who died from medical negligence as a result of an interpretation of the 8th. Many women received the treatment that Savita didn't. 

Your last sentence is interesting. A lot of people believe abortion is barbaric, and not just the religious. That's what makes it such a difficult subject. It really is best not to even think about the procedure where the baby's body has been formed.

I don't know anything about the workings / side effects of the morning after pill, but you'd think having it widely available and easy to obtain would be a good thing and vastly reduce the need/want for abortions. Although perhaps there is a medical reason for not having a container of them beside your vitamins, etc.

The Savita case is highlighted because it proves that having medical neglicence enshrined in our constitution results in unnecessary death.

There's a reason people don't like it being highlighted. It forces Irish people to confront the reality that our constitution discriminates against women.

The Michelle Harte case in another which shows the reality of Ireland's unequal access to healthcare based on the sex of the patient.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/goreyguardian/news/abortion-nightmare-for-cancer-sufferer-michelle-27340507.html

The UN Human Rights Committee has found that our abortion laws are "cruel, inhuman and degrading".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/un-says-ireland-s-abortion-ban-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading-1.2678246

That situation can only be rectified by obliterating the 8th Amendment.

A 12 week old foetus is nowhere near a fully formed human being and has no ability to survive independently. It has no ability whatsoever to feel anything.

This is what it seems the on demand abortion side of argument relies on and it is bandied about as fact when it is anything but.
No human can survive independently, and no human can survive without fairly constant care until a few years after birth
There is brain activity well before the 12 week mark, to what extend they have a conscious experience no one knows. What we do know is that there is a  unique human life present that is expressing a desire to survive and grow.

Insane Bolt

I would be in favour of abortion being available in cases of foetal abnormalities and in rape cases. There is no excuse for it being used as a method of birth control , given that we are in the 21st century and the availability of contraceptives.

Hound

Quote from: Insane Bolt on May 01, 2018, 07:28:57 AM
I would be in favour of abortion being available in cases of foetal abnormalities and in rape cases. There is no excuse for it being used as a method of birth control , given that we are in the 21st century and the availability of contraceptives.
This is another quandary, among a myriad of complex issues in this debate.

If someone thinks it's wrong to allow abortions, but it's ok to abort the baby where the baby's father was a rapist.

If it's wrong/murder, then it's still wrong/murder no matter what kind of evil hoor the baby's father happens to be. Beyond horrible for the mother / rape victim, however, being put through 9 months of unwanted pregnancy with constant reminders of the rape is no excuse to murder an innocent (if that's what you believe abortion is). Baby will have no shortage of takers if put up for adoption.

And then you've the potential situation (thankfully very rare, but not unheard of) of a mother who'd prefer suicide to carrying and delivering a baby. A no brainer if you think abortion is just another medical procedure. But where you think abortion is murder, it's an absolute minefield.


magpie seanie

Quote from: omaghjoe on May 01, 2018, 07:09:54 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 30, 2018, 11:29:04 AM
Quote from: Hound on April 30, 2018, 10:31:58 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 30, 2018, 09:31:06 AM
Quote from: Hound on April 30, 2018, 09:21:16 AM
I thought Savita was a case of medical negligence rather than the 8th? Albeit a mis-reading of the 8th seems to have caused it. There have been many many women who received the treatment that Savita required, and very few who died from lack of it.

Unfortunately, it's nearly every day that there's a report in the paper about a compensation case against the HSE for medical incompetence in some hospital or another leading to death or life altering circumstances
The 8th Amendment enshrines medical negligence in the constitution.

A woman cannot get essential healthcare when there is a threat to her health.

The threat to her health has to develop into a threat to her life.

Until it's too late, in other words.

Essential healthcare in Savita's case was an abortion. She couldn't get one. If she had, she'd be alive.

The 8th Amendment is barbaric.
I'm voting Yes, but I disagree with you using the tragic Savita case. She may not be the only one, but she's the only one I'm aware of who died from medical negligence as a result of an interpretation of the 8th. Many women received the treatment that Savita didn't. 

Your last sentence is interesting. A lot of people believe abortion is barbaric, and not just the religious. That's what makes it such a difficult subject. It really is best not to even think about the procedure where the baby's body has been formed.

I don't know anything about the workings / side effects of the morning after pill, but you'd think having it widely available and easy to obtain would be a good thing and vastly reduce the need/want for abortions. Although perhaps there is a medical reason for not having a container of them beside your vitamins, etc.

The Savita case is highlighted because it proves that having medical neglicence enshrined in our constitution results in unnecessary death.

There's a reason people don't like it being highlighted. It forces Irish people to confront the reality that our constitution discriminates against women.

The Michelle Harte case in another which shows the reality of Ireland's unequal access to healthcare based on the sex of the patient.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/goreyguardian/news/abortion-nightmare-for-cancer-sufferer-michelle-27340507.html

The UN Human Rights Committee has found that our abortion laws are "cruel, inhuman and degrading".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/un-says-ireland-s-abortion-ban-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading-1.2678246

That situation can only be rectified by obliterating the 8th Amendment.

A 12 week old foetus is nowhere near a fully formed human being and has no ability to survive independently. It has no ability whatsoever to feel anything.

This is what it seems the on demand abortion side of argument relies on and it is bandied about as fact when it is anything but.
No human can survive independently, and no human can survive without fairly constant care until a few years after birth
There is brain activity well before the 12 week mark, to what extend they have a conscious experience no one knows. What we do know is that there is a  unique human life present that is expressing a desire to survive and grow.

I said way back I wouldn't say any more on this thread but I can't let repeated uses of this bullshit term pass. It's completely inaccurate and disingenuous. It's crystal clear what people are voting on and it is not "on demand abortion". By using such terminology you either show an alarming misunderstanding of the situation or it's something more sinister. The "No" side talk about compassion and support for women yet use clearly divisive and destructive terms like the above - it's a huge contradiction which underlines that care for women is not really on their agenda.

There is no "on demand abortion" side. There are people who understand the need for choice and flexibility so that proper care can be given to women. No one is running over to England and going - yippee, I just got an abortion. It's a horrible decision that come people make in their particular circumstances because in their judgement it's less bad than the alternative. That's all. I'll leave ye to it.

sid waddell

Quote from: omaghjoe on May 01, 2018, 07:09:54 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 30, 2018, 11:29:04 AM
Quote from: Hound on April 30, 2018, 10:31:58 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 30, 2018, 09:31:06 AM
Quote from: Hound on April 30, 2018, 09:21:16 AM
I thought Savita was a case of medical negligence rather than the 8th? Albeit a mis-reading of the 8th seems to have caused it. There have been many many women who received the treatment that Savita required, and very few who died from lack of it.

Unfortunately, it's nearly every day that there's a report in the paper about a compensation case against the HSE for medical incompetence in some hospital or another leading to death or life altering circumstances
The 8th Amendment enshrines medical negligence in the constitution.

A woman cannot get essential healthcare when there is a threat to her health.

The threat to her health has to develop into a threat to her life.

Until it's too late, in other words.

Essential healthcare in Savita's case was an abortion. She couldn't get one. If she had, she'd be alive.

The 8th Amendment is barbaric.
I'm voting Yes, but I disagree with you using the tragic Savita case. She may not be the only one, but she's the only one I'm aware of who died from medical negligence as a result of an interpretation of the 8th. Many women received the treatment that Savita didn't. 

Your last sentence is interesting. A lot of people believe abortion is barbaric, and not just the religious. That's what makes it such a difficult subject. It really is best not to even think about the procedure where the baby's body has been formed.

I don't know anything about the workings / side effects of the morning after pill, but you'd think having it widely available and easy to obtain would be a good thing and vastly reduce the need/want for abortions. Although perhaps there is a medical reason for not having a container of them beside your vitamins, etc.

The Savita case is highlighted because it proves that having medical neglicence enshrined in our constitution results in unnecessary death.

There's a reason people don't like it being highlighted. It forces Irish people to confront the reality that our constitution discriminates against women.

The Michelle Harte case in another which shows the reality of Ireland's unequal access to healthcare based on the sex of the patient.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/goreyguardian/news/abortion-nightmare-for-cancer-sufferer-michelle-27340507.html

The UN Human Rights Committee has found that our abortion laws are "cruel, inhuman and degrading".

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/un-says-ireland-s-abortion-ban-cruel-inhuman-or-degrading-1.2678246

That situation can only be rectified by obliterating the 8th Amendment.

A 12 week old foetus is nowhere near a fully formed human being and has no ability to survive independently. It has no ability whatsoever to feel anything.

This is what it seems the on demand abortion side of argument relies on and it is bandied about as fact when it is anything but.
No human can survive independently, and no human can survive without fairly constant care until a few years after birth
There is brain activity well before the 12 week mark, to what extend they have a conscious experience no one knows. What we do know is that there is a  unique human life present that is expressing a desire to survive and grow.

A 12 week old foetus cannot survive outside the womb. That's what I mean by surviving independently, as you well know.

We do know what conscious experience a 12 week old foetus has.

The answer is none whatsoever.

It's hard to have a debate when one side is so intent on spreading lies.

sid waddell

Quote from: Hound on May 01, 2018, 08:17:38 AM
Quote from: Insane Bolt on May 01, 2018, 07:28:57 AM
I would be in favour of abortion being available in cases of foetal abnormalities and in rape cases. There is no excuse for it being used as a method of birth control , given that we are in the 21st century and the availability of contraceptives.
This is another quandary, among a myriad of complex issues in this debate.

If someone thinks it's wrong to allow abortions, but it's ok to abort the baby where the baby's father was a rapist.

If it's wrong/murder, then it's still wrong/murder no matter what kind of evil hoor the baby's father happens to be. Beyond horrible for the mother / rape victim, however, being put through 9 months of unwanted pregnancy with constant reminders of the rape is no excuse to murder an innocent (if that's what you believe abortion is). Baby will have no shortage of takers if put up for adoption.

And then you've the potential situation (thankfully very rare, but not unheard of) of a mother who'd prefer suicide to carrying and delivering a baby. A no brainer if you think abortion is just another medical procedure. But where you think abortion is murder, it's an absolute minefield.

Anybody who genuinely thinks abortion amounts to murder should be pushing for the abolition of the 13th and 14th Amendments.

None of them are, because it would show them up for what they are.

AZOffaly

#2001
Seanie,

I might be wrong, but I thought the referendum proposes abortions in any circumstances up to 12 weeks? Is that not essentially elective abortions?

I read the website from the referendum commission, and what is being proposed is :

"The present legal position is therefore that it is lawful for a pregnancy to be terminated only where it poses a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother, including a risk of suicide. This is determined in accordance with the 2013 Act. Otherwise, it is a criminal offence to intentionally destroy unborn human life."

"If a majority votes Yes, this will allow the Oireachtas to pass laws regulating the termination of pregnancy. These laws need not limit the availability of termination to circumstances where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. Any law may be changed by the Oireachtas. If challenged, any law may be declared invalid by the courts if it conflicts with the Constitution.

If a majority votes Yes, the current law, including the law on travel and information, will remain in place unless and until it is changed by new law or is declared invalid by the courts."


Therefore, if the question is about protecting people like Savita, the constitution already seems to provide for that.
If the question is about cases of pregnancy after rape or incest, or fatal foetal abnormalities, why is that not specifically provided for in the proposed change?

By wording it the way they have, they are actually proposing a change which will allow laws be passed to make Abortion a legal option in many different circumstances.


And just to be clear, while the referendum does not explicitly mention 12 weeks, the proposed bill which would be brought forward on a Yes vote has the following section..

Head 7: Early pregnancy (12 weeks)
7. (1) It shall be lawful to carry out a termination of pregnancy in accordance with this Head
where a medical practitioner certifies, that in his or her reasonable opinion formed in good
faith, the pregnancy concerned has not exceeded 12 weeks of pregnancy.
(2) It shall be necessary for 72 hours to elapse between the time of the certification referred to
in subhead (1) and the termination of pregnancy being carried out.
(3) The medical practitioner referred to in subhead (1) shall make such arrangements as he or
she shall deem to be necessary for the carrying out of the termination of pregnancy as soon as
may be after the period referred to in subhead (2) has elapsed but before the pregnancy has
exceeded 12 weeks of pregnancy.
(4) For the purposes of this Head, ―12 weeks of pregnancy‖ shall be construed in
accordance with the medical principle that pregnancy is dated from the first day of a
woman's last menstrual period.


That, if enacted, woud allow for abortion in ANY circumstances up to 12 weeks. Abortion must be an horrific decision, and I can absolutely see circumstances where it may be the 'least bad' option, however I do feel uncomfortable with that provision in the bill, and with a referendum which allows for such a provision.

sid waddell

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 01, 2018, 12:58:12 PM

Therefore, if the question is about protecting people like Savita, the constitution already seems to provide for that.

It doesn't.

In the Savita case it was deemed that there was not a risk to her life, only to her health.

By the time it was deemed there was a risk to her life, it was too late.

Note that this is still the case even after the passing of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act.

AZOffaly

Quote from: sid waddell on May 01, 2018, 01:08:30 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 01, 2018, 12:58:12 PM

Therefore, if the question is about protecting people like Savita, the constitution already seems to provide for that.

It doesn't.

In the Savita case it was deemed that there was not a risk to her life, only to her health.

By the time it was deemed there was a risk to her life, it was too late.

Note that this is still the case even after the passing of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act.

But is that not a case of medical malpractice potentially. i.e. they minimised the threat to her life? The current legislation should have been sufficient in her case, but the doctors botched it.

sid waddell

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 01, 2018, 01:10:28 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on May 01, 2018, 01:08:30 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on May 01, 2018, 12:58:12 PM

Therefore, if the question is about protecting people like Savita, the constitution already seems to provide for that.

It doesn't.

In the Savita case it was deemed that there was not a risk to her life, only to her health.

By the time it was deemed there was a risk to her life, it was too late.

Note that this is still the case even after the passing of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act.

But is that not a case of medical malpractice potentially. i.e. they minimised the threat to her life? The current legislation should have been sufficient in her case, but the doctors botched it.
No.

In, say, any other European country, where there is no 8th Amendment, it would undoubtedly have been medical negligence and malpractice. But what would be medical negligence and malpractice anywhere else, is specifically enshrined in our constitution.

The Savita case was the constitution working exactly as it was designed to work. The 8th Amendment takes no account of the real consequences for women of rigid, ideological religious dogma.


AZOffaly

#2005
Sorry sid, but on reading the actual constitution wording, I can't agree with that. There is specific provision to allow for termination where there is a real or substantive risk. If the doctors think there is no risk, and are wrong, then they have made an arse of it.

If they feel there is a risk, the constitution allows for the termination to save the mother. It seems black and white, and is not otherwise 'enshrined' in the constitution.

If the 2013 act puts too much of a burden on proving a real risk to life of the mother, then perhaps the 2013 act needs to be reviewed in that context, rather than what is currently being proposed.

I won't paste the actual PDF because it's too long, but the link is here...http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/35/enacted/en/pdf

My reading is that the act should have saved Savita's life, but the doctors were casual or late in determining the risk.


sid waddell

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 01, 2018, 01:24:29 PM
Sorry sid, but on reading the actual constitution wording, I can't agree with that. There is specific provision to allow for termination where there is a real or substantive risk. If the doctors think there is no risk, and are wrong, then they have made an arse of it.

If they feel there is a risk, the constitution allows for the termination to save the mother. It seems black and white, and is not otherwise 'enshrined' in the constitution.

If the 2013 act puts too much of a burden on proving a real risk to life of the mother, then perhaps the 2013 act needs to be reviewed in that context, rather than what is currently being proposed.

I won't paste the actual PDF because it's too long, but the link is here...http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/35/enacted/en/pdf

My reading is that the act should have saved Savita's life, but the doctors were casual or late in determining the risk.
The 2013 act is irrelevant to a case such as the Savita one. The Savita case merely brought public pressure on the Government to legislate for the existing X Case ruling, which had been on the books for over 20 years but not legislated for.

The problem is the constitution. Proper medical care depends on prompt action. In the Savita case that prompt action would have been an abortion. Both Peter Boylan and the author of the independent report into her death, Sabaratnam Arulkumaran, are in agreement on this, and are in agreement that had she been granted an abortion when she asked for one, she would not have died.

The constitution negates prompt action being taken by medical staff. They have to be sure there is a threat to the life of the mother. That isn't good enough. It is medical malpractice enshrined as a sacred cow.

It has to go.

AZOffaly

Well then modify the 2013 act to allow the levels of 'risk' to be more generous. I don't understand the need for the 12 weeks in any circumstances.

seafoid

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 01, 2018, 01:56:50 PM
Well then modify the 2013 act to allow the levels of 'risk' to be more generous. I don't understand the need for the 12 weeks in any circumstances.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/17/ireland-woman-forced-birth-denied-abortion
A young woman has been legally forced to give birth by caesarean section after being denied an abortion in Ireland, in a case experts say exposes flaws in recent reform meant to allow limited terminations.
The woman, who is an immigrant and cannot be named for legal reasons, was refused an abortion even though at eight weeks she demanded a termination, claiming she was suicidal.
After she then threatened a hunger strike to protest the decision, local health authorities obtained a court order to deliver the baby prematurely – at around 25 weeks according to some reports – to ensure its safety. The infant has been placed in care.
The case is the first proper test of the 2013 Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, which allows for limited abortions in Irish hospitals. The law provides for cases where the woman's life would be in danger if she goes full term, or in cases where she is suicidal in such instances as rape and incest. Critics say that in this instance the law has proved of no practical value to the woman concerned.
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

sid waddell

Quote from: AZOffaly on May 01, 2018, 01:56:50 PM
Well then modify the 2013 act to allow the levels of 'risk' to be more generous. I don't understand the need for the 12 weeks in any circumstances.
That would be unconstitutional.

Provision for essential healthcare for pregnant women in Ireland can only be obtained by changing the constitution.

The proposal for 12 weeks is because a majority of people are in favour of a woman's right to bodily autonomy. An Irish Government is for once tackling an issue head on and with honesty and courage.

Had they not done so, it would have been a major campaign issue.

Legislating for anything less than the right to choose, such as allowing abortion in cases of rape or incest, is a legal and practical minefield.

How do you prove that a woman has been raped within 39 weeks, never mind 12 weeks? Proving rape is an incredibly difficult task in any time frame.