Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Irish abortion laws

999 replies

crumpet · 23/05/2015 16:38

In all the publicity about the gay marriage referendum Aibu to wonder why there hasn't been mention of the abortion laws? Have I missed discussion on this?

OP posts:
jusdepamplemousse · 25/05/2015 17:57

bumbley - unlikely that she does out and out want to risk her baby's health. That's not going to be anyone's stand out goal. But what about if she wants a certain course of treatment for whatever reason but against her will another course is chosen by medics as it presents less risk to the foetus, which is deemed to have equal protection at law?

bumbleymummy · 25/05/2015 17:59

ARM isnt necessarily less risky for the foetus though- see my last post. I think we x-posted.

GeorgeYeatsAutomaticWriter · 25/05/2015 18:01

Whether or not ARM is more or less risky for the foetus is beside the point. The point is that no consent was sought or given for the procedure, and the Irish High Court has upheld that position.

duplodon · 25/05/2015 18:02

I'm saying that a midwife shouldn't get to do something to you that you have explicitly denied consent for, no. I don't care if God gave a midwife that qualification, honestly.

This is about the eighth:

"Despite all this, there was some slight reassurance that a birthing woman’s right to consent and informed refusal was recognised at all in a National Consent Policy, despite these limitations. The Consent Policy stating a pregnant woman could consent or refuse treatment unless refusal “would put the life of a viable foetus at risk”. "

jusdepamplemousse · 25/05/2015 18:02

Not sure if that's for me bumbley - but I was talking about more general situations, not the ARM case, sorry. That case seems to present both lack of concern for consent AND lack of concern for best practice, I agree with that.

BathtimeFunkster · 25/05/2015 18:04

why would a woman giving birth want to put her child at risk?

She's probably one of those dirty hussies who would choose to have an abortion at term for the fun of it.

are you saying that midwives can't make informed decisions?

They can make informed "decisions", but people (in countries that observe human rights law) have a right to consent to any medical procedure.

That women do not have that right in Ireland is a massive violation.

There's a special word for putting something into a woman's vagina without her consent.

bumbleymummy · 25/05/2015 18:04

Isn't that more to do with poor practice though rather than women not having rights because of the 8th? I don't think the motivation behind it was because the foetus had equal rights. It probably actually wasn't the best decision for the foetus.

duplodon · 25/05/2015 18:05

I gave birth in the UK and my third baby was born in the caul/amniotic sac. I have been told by nurse friends in Ireland this just wouldn't be allowed, if my waters had been bulging they would have broken them.

I am really very uncomfortable with the idea my explicit denial of consent for some VEs and ARM would not be respected in Ireland. This leaves the door open for forced VEs. I don't want that for any woman, ever.

bumbleymummy · 25/05/2015 18:06

My last post was to George.

GeorgeYeatsAutomaticWriter · 25/05/2015 18:06

What do you think the motivation was behind it, so, bumbley? Bearing in mind that this has been upheld by the High Court (i.e. not attributable to poor practice).

bumbleymummy · 25/05/2015 18:07

Really duplo? Maybe that's policy in certain hospitals. My cousin's little boy was born in his caul.

duplodon · 25/05/2015 18:08

No, the judgement is explicit that if the life of the foetus is deemed to be at risk by someone with a degree that says they can assess that risk, a woman cannot refuse consent to that procedure. This is absolutely to do with the eighth and absolutely opens a door for forced VE in labour.

bumbleymummy · 25/05/2015 18:09

George - isn't it five to speed up labour? Do you think it was done in the best interests of the foetus? Ie putting its rights ahead of the woman's? I can't see that given the risk of prolapsed cord etc.

bumbleymummy · 25/05/2015 18:09

Isn't it done to speed up labour

jusdepamplemousse · 25/05/2015 18:09

Like I said bumbley - I wasn't talking about the ARM case.

But i think the existence of the 8th and the fact that the constitution takes away - to at least some extent - women's decisions in pregnancy and birth probably doesn't help medics to respect women's autonomy and decisions generally. I can see how it would have a filter down effect.

Medical negligence is I agree a separate issue.

duplodon · 25/05/2015 18:10

And maybe your cousin had a great midwife. However if she had a horrible one who wanted to do ARM and she had denied consent, the court of the land would allow that she had no right to do so, even if what she did was poor practice. Seriously, the evidence is there that this is a deeply damaging piece of law that diminishes women's human rights, irregardless of your views on abortion.

bumbleymummy · 25/05/2015 18:11

Duplo - I thought she had consented to the VE but not the ARM.

GeorgeYeatsAutomaticWriter · 25/05/2015 18:11

I think this judgement and this case stems from

(a) a climate of misogyny and disrespect for women's bodily autonomy when it comes to obstetrics in particular
(b) as stated in the National Consent Policy, interpretation of the 8th has fed directly into this

duplodon · 25/05/2015 18:12

And the judgement is clear that it didn't matter it wasn't great practice or that the outcome was negative. It still says women don't have a right to refuse consent if a professional takes an idea about what should happen. It is barbaric.

duplodon · 25/05/2015 18:14

She consented to VE but this sets a precedent that women can be denied consent on a professional's say so. That can easily be extended to cover VEs. This is how case law works.

bumbleymummy · 25/05/2015 18:23

Jus, again, I'm not sure why a woman giving birth would want to put her baby at risk. So if a medical professional was saying I need to do x,y,z to deliver this baby safely wouldn't they tend to go along with it? this is in relation to what you said about the 8th taking away decisions in birth.

GeorgeYeatsAutomaticWriter · 25/05/2015 18:27

What if, as in this case, the medical professional didn't bother to ask for consent to do x, y z?

duplodon · 25/05/2015 18:28

A lot of women don't want VEs and don't want ARM and don't believe medical practice on these are safe for the baby. Others have trauma history and don't want VEs to create panic believing this would harm their baby.

None of this matters. All patients have a right to bodily autonomy, apart from birthing women in Ireland. Do you really support this, bumbley?

BathtimeFunkster · 25/05/2015 18:30

So if a medical professional was saying I need to do x,y,z to deliver this baby safely wouldn't they tend to go along with it?

Most women would tend to go along with it.

But they would, in countries without an 8th amendment, have a choice.

In Ireland they could be forced to have a vaginal exam against their will.

You know that very well, stop being so disingenuous.

jusdepamplemousse · 25/05/2015 18:31

So because you can't imagine a woman disagreeing with a medic you don't think she should have a right to?

What if a medic says their preferred approach is to go for a section, for example, because the foetus is stressed, and the woman is totally against CS? I mean, that, or a thousand other possible scenarios. Why shouldn't a woman be able to say ok thanks I understand your preference, your advice, but I opt to do this instead?

See it's views like that which eventually mean women stop being asked full stop.