Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 47

Thread: The Rush to Judgment: That this is a Catholic Country

  1. #1

    Default The Rush to Judgment: That this is a Catholic Country

    "The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country"

    I've been mulling this over all morning, having seen the twitter reaction to the horrible death of Savita Halappanavar and her child, and the vitriol directed at the Consultant - on the basis of what the Irish Times reported.

    My wife and I lost our daughter at full term (37weeks+) a few years ago. We arrived at the hospital, found no heart beat and had to have labour induced. The abruption and the fall out, the mixing of our daughters blood, fluids and waste that had been in the womb, caused a degree of toxic shock, and combined with my wifes blood loss, had her life at severe risk. Thankfully she survived but suffered acute renal failure and significant kidney damage as a result, both of which she recovered from. I was absolutely furious with the obstetrician and lack of care that should have been provided to prevent such a 'catastrophic failure' from occuring and I remember how every comment I was told over the previous two weeks was micro analysed, to see what could and should have been done differently.

    This mornings news, and the reaction to it, thus touched a still very raw nerve, losing your child and worrying that your wife would also be lost. And so I thought about todays Irish Times report and the assumptions people have made, both about the Doctor, the right to life of the child and about sharing what i found out when I investigated what that meant in law (there was a high degree of negligence in the case) - and some questions that should be asked.

    The Doctor:
    We know abortion is illegal in Ireland. The only exception is when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. The Doctor has to be absolutely certain this is the case and no subjectivity, else they risk criminalisation under 'The Offences Against the Person Act of 1861'. This is why campaigners have been calling for legislation for 20 years on this area, to provide laws that protects Doctors who 'might' be afraid to carry out actions.

    Doctors who carry out terminations on the basis if the SC Judgment, do so in an exposed position. They risk having their judgments questioned by colleagues, litigators and Boards of Managements, many of whom still bare the heavily influence of religious orders. Under the current laws (or lack of), they have to be 100% sure the life of the mother is at 'substantial risk'. This Doctor may have been ignorant of the law (no excuse), lacked the confidence to make the call - based on the current vacumn of clarity, or, in their judgment, felt as horrific as the situation was, that it wasn't placing Ms Halappanavar's life at 'real and substantial risk'. Easy to say in retrospect, more difficult to forecast.

    The Comment:
    Much focus has been on the comment given by Mr Halappanavar that "The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country". It is important to remember, before we practically lynch the Consultant, that this is a paraphrasing and may not be the exact phrase the consultant used, or with any context given. For example: S/he could be heavily pro-choice and be incredibly frustrated at feeling s/he could not carry out the proceedure. I can very easily see how any Dr, even a pro-choice Dr, could say their hands were tied as its a Catholic country.

    The context is EVERYTHING. If they made Ms. Halappanavar diagnosis based on its being a Catholic country, then it is an outrageous deriliction of duty of care to the patient, but if the diagnosis was made on the basis they couldn't with full confidence state it had her life at serious risk - then it could easily have been a remark born out of frustration with an antiquated law and the cowardice to confront it by the legislature.

    The comment, second hand by its nature, shouldn't be assumed to be the comment of some rabid pro-life, Opus Dei-like obstetrician and could as easily be that of a deeply frustrated pro-choice consultant that would prefer to acceed to her wishes, but felt prohibited from doing so, vocalising at its core, why s/he(felt) debarred from doing so.

    We don't know. Yet.

    I am pro-choice, always have been. Yet upon our daughters death i sought every legal avenue to find out what a) should have been done and b) how does the State, in reality, reflect the right to life of the child. After a year of legal advice that demonstrated the consultant was negligent, I finally contacted William Binchy (pro-life movement) as after all, he is an authority on the area. He confirmed what my legal advice had told me. The law does not protect the rights of the unborn child, if they are not born alive. Advice, based on the case of Linda McGeehan v. National Maternity Hospital and Others, 21st April 2004, Mr. Justice Kearns (then a high court judge) referenced Section 58 of the Civil Liability Act 1961.

    "For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the law relating to wrongs shall apply to an unborn child for his protection in like manner as if the child were born, provided the child is subsequently born alive."

    To have lived is defined as 'have taken a single breath'. As she died in the womb, having not been born, she was not considered to have lived. To have heard this confirmed from a head of the pro-life movement astonished me as we had operated on the basis that article 40.3.3 of 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) would have treated all the unborn with the same rights and not prejudiced rights between them on the basis of being birthed alive.

    The laws are an ass. It's time politicians legislated and give the consultants a proper safety net to operate in AND proper consequences for where they fail in their duty of care to mother and child.

    After the fiasco of the Childrens Rights referendum, where FF & SF sat on their asses after putting up a few dozen posters and waited for an opportunity to make political capital if anything went wrong, its important they don't just row in with soundbytes but work progressively with Labour & FG to provide real legislation. Some politicians in each party are going to have severe difficulties with this, maybe enough so there isn't a Gov majority on the issue. This is bigger than party politics and can't be left fail again.

    With the challenge of getting such sensitive legislation through a Government with a mainly conservative support base, its important that while politics occurs, party politics isn't a feature. While FF is a centre/centre right party, we keep hearing SF is a left party, yet derives much support from very conservative counties like Donegal, border etc. Legislation is overdue, FF & SF, as parties need to support this so that it gives the Fg party some balls in that they won't be hung out to dry in isolation on it, that it passes and not defeat it to score a point. Lives, as we've so sadly seen, are at risk.

    ps; a superb summary of abortion legislation in ireland:
    http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-and...urce=shortlink
    Last edited by civilserpant; 14th November 2012 at 04:36 PM.

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Royalty toxic avenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,031
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    You don't have to filly legalize abortion because a consultant had a poor understanding of what his options were in one case.

    Given that I see this is platered over the Daily Mail's website, I would suggest that the story has been put out there to try and discredit Ireland's position on abortion by pro-choice campaigners, with perhaps a partial or skewed version of the facts. And even if it is as described, the ability to terminate a pregnancy to save the life of a mother is allowed for.

  3. #3
    Politics.ie Member Interista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    4,128
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toxic avenger View Post
    Given that I see this is platered over the Daily Mail's website, I would suggest that the story has been put out there to try and discredit Ireland's position on abortion by pro-choice campaigners, with perhaps a partial or skewed version of the facts.
    Yes because concern for women's welfare (especially that of an Asian immigrant) and a liberal attitude to abortion are just the things you'd expect from the Daily Mail, no?

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    1,223
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Providing Abortion "on demand" is the only sure way of protecting the lives of pregnant Mothers!

    Any regime where the law on abortion stops short of allowing abortion "on demand", will inevitably in practice, cause confusion as to when a Mother, whose life is threatened by her pregnancy, is entitled to an abortion, and end up with situtations where a doomed pregnancy will be extended to further to threaten the life of the Mother.

    Unless abortion is available on demand, conservative medical practitioners will find grounds and scope to delay intervention, necessary to save the life of the Mother.

    The life of the Mother is put in the hands of medical personnel who may believe in all manner of superstitions thousands of years old that are contradicted by yet other superstitions.

    Having an abortion law so complex that it takes an army of lawyers and medical practitioners to interpret it or to operate medical care prceedures, available in other developed nations, is a farce.

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Royalty toxic avenger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    19,031
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Interista View Post
    Yes because concern for women's welfare (especially that of an Asian immigrant) and a liberal attitude to abortion are just the things you'd expect from the Daily Mail, no?
    It's an extremely odd story to be the top story on a popular British newspaper's site - I would suggest that they didn't get hold of the story because they are avid readers of the Irish Independent...

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toxic avenger View Post
    You don't have to filly legalize abortion because a consultant had a poor understanding of what his options were in one case.

    Given that I see this is platered over the Daily Mail's website, I would suggest that the story has been put out there to try and discredit Ireland's position on abortion by pro-choice campaigners, with perhaps a partial or skewed version of the facts. And even if it is as described, the ability to terminate a pregnancy to save the life of a mother is allowed for.
    Who said anything about fully legalising? I am pro choice and would support that, but the debate at play today, and above, is solely about legislating for X. The point is, yes, the SC alows a Dr terminate a pregnancy to save the life of a mother, but you have to PROVE the mothers life is at real and substantial risk, and who knows the level of proof required - if that opinion would be challenged by a disagreeing partner/dr/lawyer in Court. Its not a civil action they may face if the Doctors judgment is disputed, but criminal.

    That ambiguity leads to mistakes.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member Dan_Murphy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cork
    Posts
    3,805
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Excellent post, Civilserpant.

  8. #8
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    17,119
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Thank you for posting your very constructive thoughts civilserpant, and condolences on your sad loss.
    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair.

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member Plebian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    9,194
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toxic avenger View Post
    You don't have to filly legalize abortion because a consultant had a poor understanding of what his options were in one case.

    Given that I see this is platered over the Daily Mail's website, I would suggest that the story has been put out there to try and discredit Ireland's position on abortion by pro-choice campaigners, with perhaps a partial or skewed version of the facts. And even if it is as described, the ability to terminate a pregnancy to save the life of a mother is allowed for.
    Here's the thing, if the foetus or baby is going to die anyway and the safest thing to do is remove it. Then the procedure should be performed asap. Or would you find that unacceptable?

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member sondagefaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    15,069
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by toxic avenger View Post
    You don't have to filly legalize abortion because a consultant had a poor understanding of what his options were in one case.

    Given that I see this is platered over the Daily Mail's website, I would suggest that the story has been put out there to try and discredit Ireland's position on abortion by pro-choice campaigners, with perhaps a partial or skewed version of the facts. And even if it is as described, the ability to terminate a pregnancy to save the life of a mother is allowed for.
    Did you actually read the OP?

    The Doctor:
    We know abortion is illegal in Ireland. The only exception is when there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother. The Doctor has to be absolutely certain this is the case and no subjectivity, else they risk criminalisation under 'The Offences Against the Person Act of 1861'. This is why campaigners have been calling for legislation for 20 years on this area, to provide laws that protects Doctors who 'might' be afraid to carry out actions.
    Doctors who carry out terminations on the basis if the SC Judgment, do so in an exposed position. They risk having their judgments questioned by colleagues, litigators and Boards of Managements, many of whom still bare the heavily influence of religious orders. Under the current laws (or lack of), they have to be 100% sure the life of the mother is at 'substantial risk'. This Doctor may have been ignorant of the law (no excuse), lacked the confidence to make the call - based on the current vacumn of clarity, or, in their judgment, felt as horrific as the situation was, that it wasn't placing Ms Halappanavar's life at 'real and substantial risk'. Easy to say in retrospect, more difficult to forecast.
    Mark Murray.

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •