Eighth Amendment poll

[omaghjoe]

Forcing doctors to wait until a woman's life is at risk is not proper healthcare.

It is effective homicide if the woman dies.

That's the reality of the 8th Amendment.


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/eighth-amendment-causing-uncertainty-for-doctors-gynaecologist-1.3478274

Eighth Amendment causing uncertainty for doctors – gynaecologist

The Eighth Amendment should be repealed as it is causing uncertainty and difficulty for doctors and delaying the treatment of seriously ill women, a gynaecologist has said.

Speaking at the launch of Fine Gael's Yes campaign in Cork, Prof Richard Greene said the amendment and the termination of pregnancy were difficult issues with both sides of the debate offering opposing views as to how it affects practitioners and patients.

"How does it affect me as a clinician, dealing daily with women and I've been working in obstetrics and gynaecology for nearly 30 years? I would say the simplest message I would give about the Eighth Amendment is that it muddies the water –we just don't have clarity about how we should practise," said Prof Greene, who works at University College Cork and Cork University Maternity Hospital.

He offered examples of how the amendment, which guarantees an equal right to life to the mother and child, has an impact on his work at the hospital. He cited the case of a woman he called Sheila, who presented at 13-14 weeks pregnant with her cervix already open in a pregnancy that she really wanted.

"Sheila's water bag around the baby had gone, the chance that this baby would survive is about one or two in 1,000. The chances of that baby's lungs developing are limited and the risk of infection is very significant and we have to achieve another 10 weeks of pregnancy to get her to a viable gestation," he said.

"But I have to actually wait until her life is at risk to do what I know is an appropriate treatment. Yes, the 2013 Protection Of Life in Pregnancy Act will allow me to act once her life is in danger but effectively the Eighth Amendment is dictating a tardiness for both Sheila and myself."

Ectopic pregnancy
Prof Greene also instanced the case of a woman he called Nancy who presented with an ectopic pregnancy, in which the foetus was outside the uterus and unviable. She was also showing signs of bleeding which put her life at risk, he said.

"We discuss it with Nancy and her partner. The decision is made to treat her surgically and remove the pregnancy. There is a heartbeat but they accept that it is the appropriate treatment and it meets all the legal requirements," he said.

"However, I leave her and I am called to come back and counsel her again because she overhears a conversation where one staff member says to the other, 'Is this legal, the baby's heart is still beating?' So the correct choice of care is being questioned because of the Eighth Amendment."

Prof Greene also gave the example of a couple he named Martina and Joe who suffered "a profound loss of pregnancy at 38 weeks when their baby was stillborn" and three subsequent miscarriages before Martina became pregnant again only to discover the baby had anencephaly.

"This baby is not going to survive, it may be born alive but it will not survive. They were devastated given their story but they were absolutely horrified at the idea we had to wait for the pregnancy to proceed and go to the end of the pregnancy, knowing there was nothing to get out of it," he said.

"And the question they were asking was why cannot we do something now so that we can at least try again and hopefully have a child and I saw the horrendous pain they went through. In the end, the Eighth Amendment was adding to their grief and mental trauma.

"They eventually went to the UK for a termination but they are still pained by all of this. They never had a baby to take home, they had no burial place, they had no service with their family. Martina's physical life was not in danger but they are psychologically traumatised because of it."

Prof Greene accepted some believe the floodgates would open if the Eighth Amendment was repealed but the evidence from Eastern Europe and some US states where free contraception and early healthcare were provided suggested the number of terminations can be reduced multifold.

"I trust the women I looked after in pregnancy and I can honestly tell you they make good decisions after much consideration before they undertake a termination. The Eighth Amendment is affecting women and doctors in providing good healthcare and that's why I'm supporting a Yes vote."

I actually agree did with alot of that. There needs to be a bit of common sense

But why didn't proposed legislation support extra emphasis for the mother health instead of removing all protection to the unborn under 12 weeks?

[sid waddell]

Pro-choice people constantly stress the need for extra support for women.

They have stressed the need for sex education, for access to contraception, and most of all, for the need for proper healthcare.

Anti-choice campaigners engage in weasel words when they talk about suporting women.

They have offered no support whatsoever to women suffering crisis pregnancies since 1983.

How can they when their campaign is based around restricting women's rights and forcing them to continue with pregnancies against their will?

You can't have proper healthcare with the 8th Amendment in place.

And you still can't have proper healthcare without proper legislation to enshrine the right to choose.

Abortion is happening and will continue to happen in Ireland.

The choice is between making it safe and legal with comprehensive follow up care, as it will be without the 8th Amendment and with abortion legislation, or keeping it unregulated and unsafe, as it will continue to be if the 8th Amendment is still in place.

[sid waddell]

https://www.facebook.com/aidancomerfordwriting/

My wife and I have an intellectually-disabled daughter. She's autistic. She will never understand consent. If she were ever pregnant, it would be through rape. If that ever happened, would you come to our house and tell us what is best for our child? Because that is what your No vote on May 25th would mean, in practice.

She's on the cusp of puberty. She's terrified of blood. She will scream (and I mean SCREAM) when she's cut, and scream even louder if we approach her to help. That can escalate to scratching, kicking and biting. Any trip to A&E might mean restraint or sedation. Can you imagine what it would be like trying to get her through pregnancy?

She doesn't handle it very well when a DVD gets stuck, so how would she handle labour? Are you going to provide support? Because, at the moment, we're struggling to get speech and language therapy for her.

Do you really think that a zygote's right to grow, for example, trumps our disabled daughter's right not to have her rapist's baby?

If we did decide that she should have an abortion, have you ever travelled with an autistic person like my daughter? To say that it is stressful for all concerned is an understatement. And we might arrive in the UK, to find people outside the clinic, roaring at us, calling us murderers.

And if we didn't make that choice, we would have to raise the baby. You might say that we could "simply" put the baby up for adoption. And how would we explain that a girl who can keen for days over a lost doll?

Before this referendum was called, I was ignorant. I had no idea of the myriad of ways that the eighth amendment has affected Irish women's healthcare and rights. I have heard some truly tragic stories, and I would never dream of standing in any woman's house and forcing my choice upon her, especially when I don't have to live with the consequences of that choice.

If tragedy ever strikes our house, don't offer me your sympathy. Sympathy doesn't buy a lot of nappies in Tesco. And don't offer me your "support." That can only be an empty promise.

The only thing I want from you is to vote YES on May 25th, so that WE - and not YOU - could decide what best to do for OUR family.

***

And if you are still set on voting No, and there's an argument forming in your head about disabled people and abortion...just don't. It isn't relevant to this referendum. And in any case, this is my life, not a point-scoring exercise. Instead, re-read this post with an open heart and an open head.

#TogetherforYes
#Repealthe8th

Please share.

[omaghjoe]

We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.

[sid waddell]

We can all start the copy and paste nonsense sid. Except the child within a babies womb have no story to copy snd paste or ever will if it is taken away for no reason.

How can you have proper healthcare for all by taking away  the right to life of the unborn?

A healthy unborn child can have it's life ended with no legal consequences or justification. That is what the majority of abortions are and will be under the proposed legislation.

I'd thank you if you didn't flippantly dismiss the many real stories about the incredible harm the 8th Amendment causes as "nonsense", thanks.

You and every other No supporter has completely avoided dealing with them, because dealing with them would force you to confront the actual reality.

We're talking about real, actual human rights here - the right of women to not suffer grave health consequences because of conservative, patriarchal religious dogma, the right of a vulnerable woman not to have to carry a pregnancy to term against their wishes without risking a long jail sentence. 

[sid waddell]

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/medic-savita-died-as-result-of-abortion-laws-461173.html

Savita Halappanavar died as a direct result of Ireland's abortion laws and not simply because she contracted sepsis, the author of the independent report into her death has said.

Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran made the comment as he said the Eighth Amendment is "not working" and declared his "surprise" it has taken five years since Savita's death for a discussion on its removal to take place.

He was speaking during a meeting of the Oireachtas committee on the future of the amendment. That meeting also heard former master of Holles Street Hospital Dr Peter Boylan call for the immediate repeal of existing laws and warn politicians will face "Groundhog day" if it does not happen.

Prof Arulkumaran said the reality is Savita died because of the abortion laws.

Asked specifically by Independent senator Lynn Ruane "if the presence of the Eighth Amendment cost Savita her life", Prof Arulkumaran said: "It was very clear the things holding the hands of physicians was the legal issue. Anybody, any junior doctor, would have said this is a sepsis condition, we must terminate.

"She did have sepsis. However, if she had a termination in the first days as requested, she would not have had sepsis. We would never have heard of her and she would be alive today," he said.

[The Boy Wonder]

Extract from my post of 02-May:
I am a conscientious objector to abortion as a choice where there are NO valid reasons for medical intervention to end a pregnancy.

Given the intolerance displayed by Sid Waddell (who cannot seem to accept that people are entitled to hold viewpoints opposite to his) I wonder why anyone would bother participating in a debate on this forum.

[sid waddell]

Extract from my post of 02-May:
I am a conscientious objector to abortion as a choice where there are NO valid reasons for medical intervention to end a pregnancy.

Given the intolerance displayed by Sid Waddell (who cannot seem to accept that people are entitled to hold viewpoints opposite to his) I wonder why anyone would bother participating in a debate on this forum.

This is a debating forum.

You've been unable to rebut any points I or any other Yes supporter has made, and in typical "No" fashion, have resorted to playing the victim card. That's getting very tedious at this stage and is a well worn tactic of the online right when they are losing a debate.

Have a read over your quoted extract there.

What right should you or anybody else have to decide what is a crisis pregnancy and what isn't?

What right should you or anybody else have to decide that a rape victim should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against her will? Because that is a direct consequence of your view.

That is what you are advocating.

Your quoted extract denies the right of a suicidal women to a termination.

That is explicitly against a European Court of Human Rights ruling and is specifically against what the Irish people decided in 1992.

That is not conscientious objection.

That is an attempt to dogmatically impose your narrow version of "morality" on everybody else.

[sid waddell]

I'd say there's a few lads here who would vote No. 1 for Des.

Councillor 'glad to stand over' claims linking sex slavery and Hitler to Eighth vote

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/councillor-glad-to-stand-over-claims-linking-sex-slavery-and-hitler-to-eighth-vote-36888250.html

A county councillor has defended claims that the abolition of the Eighth Amendment will lead to sex slavery becoming "normalised".

Leitrim Independent councillor Des Guckian said in an email to his constituents that "Hitler would be very happy with the proposal to abolish the Eighth".

[magpie seanie]

Just a question for the Yes voters, do you see any problem with the large scale abortion of children with abnormalities? I seen a guardian piece lately that said 92% of babies with Down's syndrome were aborted in England since the pre natal screen for Down's syndrome came in. There were also suggestions that a similar pre natal test for aspergers and autism could see a similar discrimination against those conditions.

What's your argument in favour of conditions like that?

No one is arguing for that. It's a complete red herring and typical of the misinformation being put about by the No campaign. Under the proposed legislation elective abortions are not available after 12 weeks. As I understand it the test for Down's is only possible around 20 weeks. So there will be no change here in those circumstances.

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/pregnancy-and-baby/screening-amniocentesis-downs-syndrome/

Test is carried out between 10-14 weeks. So much for the No side being the ones spreading misinformation.

Thank you for the correction. I guess I was mistaken and my memory failed me from my personal experiences. To equate what I said above with "spreading disinformation" is a bit laughable so wind your neck in.

[AZOffaly]

Sid, everything you posted about would be the only reasons I would countenance voting YES. I've said all along that those type of circumstances should be legislated for. However I believe this could have been done by rewording the 8th amendment in a more clear fashion.

The bit that I am not comfortable with, and the reason I am voting NO, is because I cannot support 12 week elective abortions. And because of this referendum passing, the Government has told us that is exactly what they are going to push through the Dáil and Seanad.

[sid waddell]

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/down-syndrome-group-calls-for-respect-during-abortion-referendum-1.3366953

Down Syndrome Ireland (DSI) said the use of the image by Love Both had "come on top of a number of references" in the media recently in which campaigners had referred to people with Down syndrome to present their views.

"This is very disrespectful to both children and adults with Down syndrome and their families. It is also causing a lot of stress to parents. People with Down syndrome should not be used as an argument for either side of this debate."

"Down syndrome Ireland believes that it is up to each individual to make their own decision about which way to vote in the upcoming referendum.

"We are respectfully asking both sides of the campaign debate, all political parties and any other interested groups to stop exploiting children and adults with Down syndrome to promote their campaign views.

[sid waddell]

Sid, everything you posted about would be the only reasons I would countenance voting YES. I've said all along that those type of circumstances should be legislated for. However I believe this could have been done by rewording the 8th amendement in a more clear fashion.

The bit that I am not comfortable with, and the reason I am voting NO, is because I cannot support 12 week elective abortions. And because of this referendum passing, the Government has told us that is exactly what they are going to push through the Dáil and Seanad.

You can't "reword" the 8th Amendment to include certain circumstances you don't like. It is by definition a blunt instrument designed to pay no heed to "hard cases" (every crisis pregnancy is a hard case).

In the current situation it would be unconstitutional to legislate for circumstances such as rape and fatal foetal abnormaility.

Those situations can only be legislated for by abolishing the 8th Amendment.

Anybody who claims to want to make exceptions but who says they will vote No is just making excuses. 

Also, making rape an exception is a terrible idea.

A letter in the Irish Times last week explained in very clear fashion why this is so.

Expert evidence given to both the Citizen's Assembly and the Joint Oireachtas Committee explicitly stated that it would be impossible to legislate for abortion in cases of rape or incest without further traumatising victims. According to this evidence, any legislation that included a specific clause for rape would mean that victims would need to firstly disclose their assault and secondly to prove on some level that their pregnancy was as a result of sexual violence. As someone who has worked with victims of sexual violence I can tell you this not workable, and the experts agree. Victims of rape are severely traumatised in the days, weeks and months after their attack. Two-thirds of victims never report, and when they do it is most frequently to a friend or family member. Asking a victim to sit across from a professional and disclose their story in order to obtain an abortion is not compassionate and it is not in the best interests of victims. It forces them to relive their horrific experiences and creates unnecessary distress and suffering at a time when they are most vulnerable. If we truly want to show compassion and kindness to rape victims we need to allow them to make that choice in private without forcing them to relive their nightmare.

Niamh Casey, Rathcormac, Co., Cork.

[AZOffaly]

I'm not making any excuses. I'm voting NO because I don't want the proposed legislation to be passed into law.


If that wasn't on the table, this referendum would pass by a much bigger margin I think.

[sid waddell]

I'm not making any excuses. I'm voting NO because I don't want the proposed legislation to be passed into law.


If that wasn't on the table, this referendum would pass by a much bigger margin I think.

Then you're voting on something other than the question being asked.

So, yes, you very muh are making excuses.

Abortion should be a question for legislators, not the constitution.