BBC 9o clock news reporting of verdict on savita halappanavar case in ireland - bad(18 Posts)
It was reported that she died after being "refused an abortion", giving the impression that she sought a termination, rather than that she was denied treatment for miscarriage as a result of the abortion laws/poor medical decision.
The coroner recorded a verdict of 'medical misadventure'. One of his 9 recommendations was that clarity is required on when 'intervention' ie abortion, is legitimate to save a woman's life. Expert witnesses testified that if therapeutic abortion had been available Savita would 'probably' be alive today. Reporting of the case has made it clear, IMHO, of the role that Ireland's draconian abortion laws have played in her death.
Oh, and she did seek a termination, repeatedly, as did her husband. But they were refused, obviously.
Since this first hit the media it's been called an abortion. It does seem wrong, because in general the public perception is that an abortion means the ending of a viable pregnancy.
Sorry I miss understood your OP.
As has been said, she and her husband did request that the pregnacy be terminated, all requests were denied. She is however dead because on top of that her medical care was very poor and lacking, the obviousness of the infection seem to have been pretty much ignored.
I agree OP. I don't think you can use such a loaded phrase and claim it's a neutral medical term. They should have at least used termination. I agree it was horribly unclear and implied it was something she 'wanted', not life saving treatment.
It does seem wrong, because in general the public perception is that an abortion means the ending of a viable pregnancy.
Which is why it should be referred to as an abortion.
If you talk to anyone who is 'antiabortion' most have exceptions and this would be one, but they still want laws to outlaw abortion.
It's my understanding that the couple WANTED this baby
They did not want either an abortion or a termination
Very sadly the foetus was not viable
The couple then wanted medical management of a misscarriage
What they got was negligent care, verging on manslaughter
Totally incorrect to refer to abortion at all in this story
sashh that is why is shouldn't be refered to in the media as an abortion.
Her pregnancy wasn't viable, the Halappanavar baby was wanted.
Of course it should be referred to as an abortion.
Because that is what would be given to a woman in a normal country if she was having medical management of a miscarriage.
It is important to be absolutely crystal fucking clear that if you give an embryo or foetus equal rights to the woman carrying it, then normal medical procedures that involve the destruction of a still-living foetus must be denied to pregnant women.
Making them extremely vulnerable and diminishing their own right to life.
That's what it means to have a total ban on abortion.
The issue here is abortion. She was refused the treatment she needed because of the laws on abortion.
That is what has to be addressed.
And to suggest that a women only has an abortion if she doesn't want the baby is, frankly, fucking outrageous.
I'm refering to the media's use of the word, the use of abortion becsuse of the public's perception of what "an abortion" is. it also panders the the anti-choice groups protests against this case and their claims that Savita's death has become a bandwagon for the "pro-abortion" groups.
This isn't a situation where the case at debate is should a woman be able to have an abortion at 14 or whatever number of weeks because she no longer wishes to continue with the pregnancy (for whatever reason).
It is about women not being able to terminate a non viable pregnancy when her health or life is in danger, because there is a fetal heartbeat, regardless of whether that heartbeat looks quite conclusively, to stop soon. This becaue the Irish government still have not drawn up the legislation after 20 years.
On top of all the Savita was neglected in hospital, her vitals were not taken for long perods considering her symptoms, and choices were made without regard to them. Her infection was more than apparent, and she was not treated for it.
The debate about legalising abortion in Ireland, so that it is a choice for all woman regardless of their immediate health, needs to be a seperate one. Debating that as part of this situation will take too long, the situation where a woman's health is at risk when the life of the fetus is not viable outside of the womb needs to be legislated on now.
Meanwhile these women, who have the time and money, will have to continue travelling to Britain, to save their health or their lives.
It has a lot to do with abortion.
The pregnancy couldn't be terminated because there was a heartbeat. The law here is that an abortion can only be carried out when there is a " real and substantial" risk to the life of the mother but its up to the doctor to make the call when her life is in risk. Even if an abortion had been carried out its no guarantee the woman will be able to recover, she may be past the point of no return.
If the laws were relaxed she could have had the abortion early on. It might not have made any difference to her given that the medics were negligent on a whole host of levels but it might have given her a chance. One of the expert witnesses at her inquest said in his opinion had she been allowed the abortion when she asked she would still be alive.
I agree with those who have said this was an abortion. To call it something else, on the basis that this baby was wanted etc introduces a moral dimension. Either there was a threat to the mother's life, or there wasn't. Clearly there was and the abortion should have been permitted, even under such a restrictive law.
Most of us will never understand the full medical information from Savita Halappanavar's case, but I'm wondering if the inquest report's discussion of managing infection is a way to avoid saying much about abortion. What I mean is, if they can make it into a story of a patient who had an infection and died, with accusations about how she could have been saved, they won't need to concentrate on how she became infected in the first place. It seems to me as if the report does a quick mumble about the need for clarity on when a termination can be performed, and then dashes off into non-controversial territory.
Unfortunately the doctors had given her the wrong antibiotics for her rare e coli antibiotic resistant infection. This case was less about abortion and more about medical negligence. Only one doctor giving evidence said that an abortion might have saved her - another referred to the wrong antibiotics as the problem. Very sad and troubling case.
Dr Boland has said that it is highly likely if they had terminated the pregancy / aported the fetus Savita would not be dead.
I am obvious not getting my point across about the medias use of the word abortion so I'm not going to try again. But it has certainly given the anti-abortion / anti-choice crowd a new platform to shout off.
Join the discussion
Please login first.