To feel glad/relieved Ireland is voting through Abortion Bill

[ARealDame]

Its only a bare minimum - in the case of a woman's life being threatened - but it is also a massive sea change, on this sensitive issue. The vote in the Lower House was 127:31.

(Mary Kenny wrote very interestingly in the Times about it - saying that although the Church has played a role, much of the opposition was to do with Ireland's fear of "depopulation". Partly because of Ireland's history - famine, mass emigration. But also due to a rural pro-natalist mindset. In agricultural communities another child is "another pair of hands". In cities, another child is "another mouth to feed".)

You've actually made me laugh though so something good came out of it!

Its thought experiment, you have to, y'know, think about it. Too hard for you, it seems. Why not leave the tough talks to the grown ups?

Up to Weds morn the only sign of infection in Savita was an elevated white blood cell count. That changed rapidly, as is frequent with sepsis. It was his expert opinion that if she had had a termination on Weds morning, it would not have saved her life as the sepsis had already set in. Under the law, the doctors had to await the arrival of sepsis before they could legally perform a termination.

It seems you don't know very much about the Savita case either. Maybe that's another thing to add to list of things to educate yourself about.

Well clearly you didn't think about it too much or you would have realised how crap it was and how it would actually work against you....shame that! Better luck next time!

Skyler, on Wednesday morning, after a night of not being monitored, her temp was elevated, her heart rate was up and she had the discharge. When do you think that changed from the elevated white blood cell count? Considering that she hadn't been monitored at all that night you won't be able to answer that.

Boylan was fully aware of and noted the inadequacies in the medical monitoring. His opinion, nonetheless, was what it was. Do you disagree?

I have read all 22 pages it makes for depressing reading because this legislation does not represent any form of progress and the arguments become circular. I do not agree with abortion and see it as a huge deal and frankly wrong but I accept that life is not perfect and there is a need for them. I will never be able to see abortion as a form of contraception or rationalise late term abortion in my head but I recognise it needs to be possible for any woman to choose an abortion in early pregnancy to allow for situations of rape and many other grey areas that life throws at us and then in later pregnancy where the foetus is incompatible with life. I know that if my daughters or anyone of my friends for that matter came to me and said the wanted to have one I know without reservation and except on mumsnet, judgement I would support them.

The petty differences on the detail of Savita's death illustrate the ills of the leglislation it is likely she would still be dead with this leglislation. her best chance for survival and the best care she could have received in her situation involved an earlier abortion before her life was in danger. It needs to be possible to terminate when the woman's health not her life demands it. All these grey areas can have serious consequences for women's health.

Second reason this legislation is rediculous is the 14 year sentence which a woman could face for procuring an abortion in Ireland. All in all the legislation is a complete farce. Certainly no progress there.

thats an actual person you're talking about, who died horribly and needlessly. Have some shame and stop badly point-scoring using it for your own ends. Against the stance of her family, I might add. Give it up.

Skyler, You didn't answer my earlier question - was he asked ok the balance of probabilities whether she would have survived had the sepsis been diagnosed earlier and treated appropriately?

Asked if*

Koba, if I remeber correctly it was you who first brought Savita up in the argument. I believe you have also used 'tell that to Savita's husband' on this thread. Perhaps you should practice what you preach?

Practise*

No. By the time the sepsis arrived, it was too late. In order for her life to be saved, Savita needed to have a termination before the sepsis took hold. That was his expert opinion. For the fourth time, so you accept his opinion?

He did not say that was the only way her life would be saved nor did he say that her life definitely would have been saved. Was your 'no' an answer to my question? So he wasn't asked about whether or not earlier diagnosis and treatment would have made a difference? If that was the case then why do you think you are in the position to say that the abortion was her only chance? Are you a doctor? Are you in a position to say that noting a change in temperature/increased heart rate and the presence of discharge earlier would not have made a difference?

I am a doctor, although not a medical one. Which is why I accept the expert opinion of the most senior obstetrician in the country, based on a forensic examination of the patient's chart, a review of all witness statements and daily transcripts of the evidence.

Despite not being a doctor, you seem to think that your opinion carries as much weight as Boylan's. it doesn't.

It has been stated before: Boylan's expert opinion was that legal restrictions, not medical mismanagement, caused The patient's death. I accept his opinion. Fifth time: do you?

Oh bumbley. It really is very obvious you haven't followed this closely at all.

But I applaud your thread derailing capabilities. On this and elsewhere. Kudos, really, you are accomplished in this regard.

Maryz in general I have found many of the arguments on the pro life side use a form of derailment of the issues in order not to allow the debate to be developed/furthered in any way. Derailment of the argument stunts progress and so it is merely a tactic. It makes for a very juvenile form of debate though a little like a toddler who stomps and pretends they can't hear you.

Other doctors believed it was medical mismanagement. In any case, even if an abortion could have saved her it does not rule out the possibility that better management could also have saved her. That means you are not in the position to say that abortion was the only thing that would have saved her. Following up her blood tests, monitoring her through the night - all the things that were pointed out as failings and led to the recommendations that were made could have saved her. Did Dr Boylan say it was the only thing that would have saved her?

We're still on the same subject - hardly derailed! Although the 'tactics' of the pro-choicers on this thread are very interesting - insults, false accusations etc. Charming.

5000+ Irish women are having abortions annually. Most in the UK. Some from pills on the net. This legislation won't change that. It won't save Savita, sadly. But it's a start.
Hopefully to safe legal abortion for any woman that requests it. For any reason.

Very much doubt that Ireland are ever going to allow abortion on demand to term for any woman don't laugh - the UK don't even provide that.