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".)

Have you not been given any counselling?

For fuck's sake. I feel like Paxman here. Sixth time: do you accept the expert opinion of Boylan? Instead of obfuscating by quoting epispocal statements, please answer the question bunbley.

I answered you already skyler. Read my posts. I haven't said that I don't agree with him - the abortion may have saved her but that doesn't mean it was the only thing that could have saved her. Afaik he didn't say that either. You have also said that he wasn't asked whether better monitoring, earlier diagnosis and treatment could, on the balance of probabilities, saved her life (as other doctors have said) so what exactly are you basing your ' only thing that would have saved her' on?

Boylan's use of 'balance of probabilities' was carefully chosen. He was explicit about that - he stated that as doctors, they do not deal in certainties. His opinion was the all other considerations aside, best medical practice which would have ensured the best possible outcome for Savita would have been a termination on Monday or Tuesday, at which point the only sign of infection was an elevated white blood cell count. He was also explicit that in his expert opinion, legal restrictions not medical mismanagement were what caused the death of Savita.

You seem to think, despite not being a medical doctor, not having seen the chart, not having access to witness statements and not having read all inquest transcripts, that YOUR medical opinion is more valid than his. The arrogance of that would be hilarious, if it want so fucking tragic and dangerous.

I didn't say he wasn't asked about better monitoring etc - he was, and he disagreed. Based on his experience, expertise and all the detailed information available to him. What are you basing your opinion on?

Yes, skyler, they don't work in certainties, which is why he didn't say it was the only thing that would have saved her, as you earlier suggested.

You, without being medically qualified, are ignoring the medical opinion of all the other doctors that worked with her, that acknowledged that there were failings in her care. Also, her elevated heart rate was noted on Tuesday evening - she still wasn't monitored through the night.

and Boylan was the only one of the consultants who came out and said that the law in its current form was an obstacle to good medical practice. In the Irish context that says (1) legislate (properly) for the X case (2) he is not opposed to abortion per se. My respect for Boylan has grown hugely through this. There are some excellent people working here (and some arseholes - the culture in Galway entirely dominated by a strongly pro-life consultant now retired), Fergal Malone at the Rotunda is also fabulous - the man who pioneered ante-natal testing in Ireland in the face of massive opposition. I am not adding to the debate here, am I??

You are, rhetorician, but I doubt bumbley will listen to you either.

BOYLAN RECOGNISED THERE WERE INADEQUACIES IN HER CARE. HE DID NOT THINK THOSE INADEQUACIES WERE THE CAUSE OF HER DEATH. THAT WAS CAUSED IN HIS EXPERT OPINION BY YHE RESTRICTIONS IN THE LAW.

According to medical professionals mentioned here the best course of treatment for Savita involved having a termination earlier. In this particular case it seemed that all of the doctors involved acknowledged that she was having a miscarriage and they were waiting for nature to takes its course this baby tragically and sadly was not going to make it. In light of that Bumbley would you have supported Savita to have an abortion given all that has happened? You keep talking about the other options, options which the very esteemed members of the medical profession who have looked forensically at the case have said are not the best care this woman could have been given to save her life so my question again is do you think knowing all that we do that Savita should have been given an abortion?

even should Savita have been given an abortion?

I am listening skyler. You're just still dodging the 'only' issue. It's ok for you to misquote is it?

Her own doctor said that had she known about the discharge she would have terminated earlier. That smell was not noticed until the morning after her increased heart rate was noted. She had not been monitored through the night. Her doctor obviously felt that smell was enough to warrant the termination because her life was then considered to be at risk.

I actually am relieved to see your last post Bumbley you recognise Savita needed a termination now it is obvious it came too late since she passed away and maybe waiting until we have the smell of putrid flesh which is what I assume infection on this scale smelt like is not the best option. The reason for this waiting was at least in part because the consultant was constricted by Irish law to wait for the life of the mother to be at risk not her health, that is too restrictive to practice best practice medicine. That said I do agree there were other issues too as were highlighted in the 2 investigations monitoring etc but if she had that temination earlier and then was treated accordingly with antibiotics all expert testimony points to her best opportunity for the best possible outcome which of course still might not have been a good outcome.

Um - I didn't say she needed an abortion. I said her doctor would have terminated earlier if she had known about the discharge. That infection should have been picked up sooner. Her increased heart rate was noted the night before and she still wasn't monitored through the night. If her changing condition had been noted and she had received appropriate treatment that infection may never have taken hold. If the infection had not taken hold her life may not have been at risk and she may not have needed the abortion. The reason the doctor said she would have terminated earlier was because the infection had been allowed to get to the life threatening stage.

That is much less reassuring bumbley. The fact is although you do not recognise it is that you do not believe that abortion should be available to women whose life is at risk and although again you do not recognise it you have the most hard line pro abortion stance that there is Think Cardinal Connell and there is never a reason where abortion would save a woman's life. If you did support abortion for women whose life was at risk then this is the most cut and dried case there ever was given that the woman has sadly passed away. If a woman's life is at risk it is a doctor not you who makes that judgement, many doctors who have looked at the case in detail have made that judgement in the Savita case and said an abortion was needed but you apparently do not agree. Your stance if carried through our maternity system would end up with fewer abortions but with more dead women a fact which you are obviously comfortable with. That stance which is sadly not as uncommon as it should be displays very limited empathy and it is commonplace among very unchristian hardline Catholics in Ireland.

Neun, I know you want that to be true about me but it just isn't. I have already said that I believe that abortion should be available to women when their life is in danger ( although I also feel that the life of the foetus should be preserved wherever possible). You seem slightly obsessed with this cardinal tbh.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing. In this case, when Savita first requested the abortion, her life was not in danger. The point at which her life did become endangered was missed. I do not think this is a cut and dried case at all. You can use hindsight to say, 'if she'd had the abortion on day 1, she may have survived' but why stop there? If she had the abortion when she first got pregnant, she may have survived. If she hasn't got pregnant at all, she would have survived!

The point is that abortion was an available option to her when her life as in danger but that point was missed. If her life had been found to be in danger earlier then she would have been given the abortion.

When she was first admitted the doctors said that there was still a small significant possibility that the foetus would survive until term.

Um - I didn't say she needed an abortion. You have quite clearly stated now abortion was not needed in this case Bumbley, medical professionals including the one who was looking after the patient and 2 others who looked forensically have said she needed an abortion. Explain how that is conduicive to your view that I believe that abortion should be available to women when their life is in danger. Is it only when you think an abortion is required that they are actually necessary? because obviously all the obstreticians in the country all want to carry out abortions willy nilly. Her life was quite clearly in danger and you do not believe abortion was needed in this case.

Your views do not compute when you put them together. Believe me I do not want you or anyone to have this view because it lacks empathy or compansion to women and their families.

The reality that it is not easy to tell when the risk to the mother's health passes to being a risk to her life and this makes it impossible for certainties so then you have to look at what is considered to be best medical practice something which you do not want to happen in this or similar cases because it involves termination in some cases or maybe which would be more palatable certainly to me early delivery of the baby in others.

Oh my word! I didn't say it was needed because that suggests that it was the only way her life could have been saved. Even the doctors haven't said that. When her life was in danger then yes, the abortion should have and would have been carried out. (I agree with that) Her life was not in danger when she was admitted and the foetus was said to have a small but significant chance of survival. It's all very well in hindsight to say oh, they should have aborted as soon as she was brought in but at the time there was still a possibility that both mother and foetus could have come through. Her life was not 'quite clearly in danger' at all. She had an elevated white blood cell count. Blood tests were carried out (and not followed up) and she was started on antibiotics. When her condition started to get worse (increased heart rate etc) the opportunity to offer her the abortion at an earlier stage was missed because she wasn't being monitored.

Do you think abortion should start being offered 'just in case' ? If you didn't have the benefit of hindsight for this particular case then that is what you're suggesting.

Sorry, rewording my first line for clarity. The reason I didn't say it was needed was because that suggests that it was the only way her life would have been saved.

No I didn't receive counselling. I'm not quite sure why you pointed out its an emotional subject? I think I'm better placed to know it is and I was well aware of the thread title

Fair enough. I personally have avoided other threads that I would have found difficult to read depending on my personal circumstances at the time. Each to their own though.

I thought you were supposed to be offered counselling when you have an abortion. Surely they shouldnt just provide the abortion and then let you get on with it without providing any support for any potential emotional fallout? That doesn't seem right.

I'm not sure. Personally I didn't see two doctors or have counselling. Not sure how it usually works

Are you in the UK? Two doctors are supposed to ensure that the requirements of the Abortion Act are fulfilled and they both have to sign the relevant certificate.

Yes I'm in the UK. Had a telephone consultation then my appointment was made

Surely that's not legal? How are two doctors supposed to agree that it meets the requirements of the Abortion Act if they haven't met you and one of them hasn't even spoken to you?

Did you at least get offered counselling. I don't think there is any obligation to take it but shouldn't it at least be offered?

I think they said they offered it if I needed it. Personally I was angry that it wasn't explained that I could be in a lot more pain than "a bad period"
I believe in contraception readily available, education and being open about choices. Maybe I was naive but I didn't expect an hour of contractions back to back