Irish abortion laws

[crumpet]

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?

I just feel like as an adult, I'm entitled to my bodily autonomy, and not to be assaulted by anyone, medical qualification or not.

I and I alone should be the boss of my body.

Or if you are 41 weeks and wish to refuse induction because of its risks, but a doctor says you must have one. Can you imagine how crazy that could be, a woman could be detained against her will or summoned, given medication against her will. That is just not okay, no matter what your views on the rights of the unborn.

George, in this case, it wasn't to do with delivering the baby safely. I asked you up thread why you thought it was done in this case irt the 8th.

Duplo, I'm
Just not seeing how it relates to the 8th really. If they're having to do something to save the foetus then you're in pretty dire straits and I'm not sure why a mother would refuse consent to save the life of her child.

Well, for whatever her reasons are, bumbley. Could be anything. The key thing is that they would be her reasons. Do you think women should be overruled and forced to have procedures they don't want in the event that the medic and the mother want to do different things?

I can't understand your question, bumbley. You're obfuscating (surprise, surprise).

I know you are a big fan of the 8th amendment, and I've understood from your many, many posts re symphisiotomy that you don't have much of a problem with women having their pelvises sawed apart, so it shouldn't surprise me that you don't think consent, let alone informed consent, is something Irish women should be entitled to. But I somehow thought that even you might think this was a bridge too far.

Just not seeing how it relates to the 8th really.

You don't appear to see that anything relates to the 8th.

Since it's such an irrelevant and inconsequential amendment, I'm sure you'll join us in having it removed from the constitution.

No point in keeping dead wood around.

The Labour Party has pledged to hold a referendum on abortion if it is re-elected to Government.

Bathtime

Aodhán O Ríordáin is a bit of hero.

I kind of wish he hadn't out in the bit about the women travelling.

Discussion about the 8th needs to be about women having the right to bodily integrity. About restoring basic equality to women.

I could live with abortion still being illegal if the removal of the 8th amendment restored women's most basic human rights.

Whether, and how, to legislate for abortion in Ireland is a different discussion.

The 8th isn't really about abortion, it's about unacceptable state control over women's bodies.

Good point well made bathtime....

"Aodhán O Ríordáin is a bit of hero."

That he is - he's my local TD and I have loads of time for him. He's also been great on the whole "we need more non-denominational schools" thing.

"Since it's such an irrelevant and inconsequential amendment, I'm sure you'll join us in having it removed from the constitution.

No point in keeping dead wood around."

:)

george, my question at 18:09."George - isn't it done 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."

Seriously, what you got from the symphysiotomy thread was that I "don't have much of a problem with women having their pelvises sawed apart" . Just to start with, maybe you could take note of what the procedure actually involves and then maybe try to understand that I was discussing the motivation behind the procedure and how/why it may have been used. (HINT - it's not all about misogynistic RC doctors)

Well, nothing that's been mentioned so far Bathtime.

Just because I don't agree that it's doing what you think it is doesn't mean it isn't doing anything.

Aodhán's my current fave politician by a fair whack.

No bumbley, plenty of procedures are suggested that are not necessary eg medical induction at 41 weeks, cs instead of vbac etc. I also think you hugely underestimate the potential impact of a legally sanctioned forced VE which is essentially assault. That could have hugely damaging ramifications for entire families. Are you okay with that?

duplo, the fact that you are saying they are 'suggested' doesn't sound like all these doctors are lining up to assault women. I think it's a bit offensive to suggest that doctors/midwives would deliberately go against the wishes of a woman unless it was genuinely a life or death situation - first do no harm and all that.

It doesn't matter. Legally they can. That's an issue. You want to believe this amendment is good, I get that. It is hugely legally problematic because law is like that, it can have a lot of unintended consequences. This is a dangerous law lacking in clarity that constitutes a human rights issue no matter how much you wish it didn't.

I think it's a bit offensive to suggest that doctors/midwives would deliberately go against the wishes of a woman unless it was genuinely a life or death situation - first do no harm and all that

The midwife in the case in question didn't even bother to ask for consent. There's no indication that it was a life or death situation.

And we don't have laws on murder or domestic violence or drink driving because we belive everyone everywhere is a murdering partner-beating drink driver, but because some people do these things and they cause harm. It doesn't make it okay to set a legal precedent for denying bodily consent to women in labour.

But she wasn't 'deliberately going against her wishes. She hadn't said, "no, I don't want that" and the midwife went ahead anyway. As I said earlier, it seems more to be poor practice than something to do with the 8th because she wasn't doing it in the best interest of the foetus/putting the foetus first. In fact, she actually put the foetus at risk!

Duplo, honestly, I'm just trying to understand why it is blamed for some of the things that are being discussed on this thread.

sorry, first part of that post was for George.

That's the point! They didn't even bother to ask her consent, just went ahead and performed the procedure anyway. The High Court upheld that position.

Are you ok with that?

"we don't have laws on murder or domestic violence or drink driving because we believe everyone everywhere is a murdering partner-beating drink driver, but because some people do these things and they cause harm. "

Well, yes. By some people's logic though, we shouldn't need these laws because most people don't murder/aren't perpetrators of DV and don't drink drive. If you don't like them, don't do them but don't stop other people from doing them because you shouldn't tell them what to do with their life.

Seriously, Bumbley, it is not ever okay in healthcare to do something to someone without asking their consent unless the person has been legally deemed not to have mental capacity. You can't sedate someone who is actively psychotic without a section. It is the first thing you learn. There is no other situation in healthcare where a judgement could be passed saying the midwife was okay to take action without securing consent. The judgement references the eighth. You don't want to believe it, but that doesn't make it untrue.

George, how is it to do with the 8th when the procedure wasn't performed to save the foetus' life/put the foetus ahead of the mother. It actually put the foetus at risk. You still haven't answered this.