Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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:
bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 11:24

Happy to own what I actually wrote.

Calfon · 26/05/2015 11:26

I have a bit of catching up to do in reading all the posts so apologies if this has already been posted but the campaign to repeal the 8th has started. You can add your voice by signing the online petition:
www.abortionrightscampaign.ie/repealthe8th/

jusdepamplemousse · 26/05/2015 11:29

Thanks calfon. Signed.

SabrinnaOfDystopia · 26/05/2015 11:31

Yes, I'm entitled to think what I like, bumbley. You can only blame your own writing if posts are misinterpreted. After all, I'm not the only one to draw such conclusions from your writing.

I conclude that you put the rights of the baby in utero above the rights of women to their bodily autonomy, from reading your posts on here.

Am I wrong?

SabrinnaOfDystopia · 26/05/2015 11:34

Enough with arguing with bumbley over her mealy-mouthed posting anyway.

Hope the petition gains some momentum here.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 11:40

Yes, and the other people who draw those conclusions are in no way biased/ confrontational/ holding grudges at all Grin

I put the right to life of a foetus above the right to choose unless the woman's life is in danger.

Yes, I did ask if we could move on a couple of pages ago…Not sure why people get so caught up in asking me what my views are on these threads. It's just my opinion - everyone on this thread has one.

TheVeryThing · 26/05/2015 11:45

Thanks for posting that Calfon, signed

leedy · 26/05/2015 11:52

And yet again, it seems like trying to discuss anything with bumbleymummy is like arguing with jelly.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 11:57

I answered every one of your questions leery. Don't just say things for the sake of it. Honestly, it gets so childish - everyone just wants to find something to have a go about. What did that comment contribute to the discussion? Nothing. You just wanted to have a go at me. It's so tedious. Can we just move on?

SabrinnaOfDystopia · 26/05/2015 12:05

So Savita should have been allowed a termination, since her baby had no chance of life.

LumpySpacedPrincess · 26/05/2015 12:08

Lumpy, a woman's life is worth more than a foetus' in the law.

Not when women are dying because of this law.

BathtimeFunkster · 26/05/2015 12:11

It doesn't even count as a termination of pregnancy to do a D&C during miscarriage.

The pregnancy is terminating itself.

Calling medical treatment during a miscarriage "an abortion" is so fucked up.

"No, you cannot have the contents of your own womb removed despite the fact that you are in pain and that it would reduce the chance of you developing sepsis and dying, because the foetus your body is miscarrying still has a heartbeat.

Instead, you must lie here in agony and 'await events'.

And by 'events', we mean your completely avoidable death."

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 12:11

Well I guess they were erring on the side of 'where there's a heartbeat, there is a chance' - the foetus was still alive and Savita's life was not in danger at that point. I agree that she should have been induced when her condition started to deteriorate and that was much sooner than when they detected it. They had decided to induce labour regardless of whether the foetus had a heartbeat (they had stopped checking it at Savita's request the day before) but that decision was made much later than it should have been.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 12:12

Lumpy, they aren't dying because of the law.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 12:15

Bathtime, D&Cs are usually performed after miscarriages. They are an abortion procedure up to 12/14 weeks of pregnancy. Savita was 17 weeks pregnant.

BathtimeFunkster · 26/05/2015 12:17

Well I guess they were erring on the side of 'where there's a heartbeat, there is a chance'

Bingo!

There it is - finally an admission that Savita died because the wellbeing of the foetus she was miscarrying was put ahead of her wellbeing.

Delaying put her at risk, and that proved fatal.

Once you are in the business of denying women medical care they need because the are pregnant, it's the height of hypocrisy to start wringing your hands about the fact that the medical staff waited too long.

LumpySpacedPrincess · 26/05/2015 12:23

“The interpretation of the law related to lawful termination in Ireland is considered to have been a material contributory factor,” the report found.

I disagree.

BathtimeFunkster · 26/05/2015 12:45

I think bumbley is trying to convince us that the law and the interpretation of the law are two separate and unrelated things.

That the interpretation of the law can be wrong, but the law itself can still be a good law.

Kind of like a Platonic ideal law.

LumpySpacedPrincess · 26/05/2015 13:09

Precisely.

Twasthecatthatdidit · 26/05/2015 13:10

Duplo, your latest post suggests people from every country would respond to such criticism angrily - and I agree - but your previous post seemed to be very much seeming to say it was specific to the irish, with their backward ways.
Anyway it is difficult to engage any more with this thread, it very much has become one of those Bumbley threads. She's not going to change her mind, people, haranguing her is not going to change that. I've realised that the referendum campaign (I think which is almost a certainty now the 2 parties most likely to be junior parties in the next government have it in their manifestos - unless fianna fail get in) is going to be extremely upsetting and triggering for a lot of people, including me, because of people with Bumbley's views, and their pictures and their arguments...in the interests of fairness though, I don't think her position on this thread has been at all unclear. And could someone please just acknowledge that the interpretation put on that judgement a few pages was complete cock or if not rebut what Bumbley was saying? I have to admit I was a bit surprised that the principle of informed consent had been removed from Irish law, but it's been quite a while since I looked at Med neg law, so I stayed out of it. But if that midwife comment was taken out of context, and the judgment acknowledged consent was required but on the facts found it had been given, could we not just acknowledge that? As someone with a fair bit of knowledge, I can assure that wrong, ludicrous, infuriating judgements on the facts are neither confined to law relating to women, nor unknown in the UK. But that's perhaps my defensiveness talking....

duplodon · 26/05/2015 13:29

Look, it's very hard to be both clear and nuanced on a thread that's going in a million different directions. I started on this thread by feeling fairly defensive about Ireland. I'm living here right now, I'm going to be here, but I've also been an expat, and then not been an expat.. and so all of these experiences make me have all sorts of feelings about it that are hard to pin down into words, both positive and negative. Ultimately I've chosen to be here and to raise my children here, so I do care deeply about Ireland, and this sometimes means I defend the culture and sometimes I despair of it.

I do think that Ireland today is a million times more progressive than I ever could have imagined as a despairing teen, when I was both confused about my sexual orientation and a child of divorced parents with alcohol and mental health issues and stigmatised by all these factors beyond all belief. I think most teenagers who are confused about their sexual orientation and have divorced parents who have alcohol and mental issues experience shame and all sorts of uncomfortable feelings about this experience, but mine happens to be coloured by what it was like to be specifically Irish in those times, and shaped by Irish attitudes to being in a "broken home" through the long campaign to the divorce referendum, and Irish attitudes to drink and mental illness.

Like most Irish people, I will react strongly and in a somewhat kneejerk way to statements that denigrate the nature of the progress that Ireland has made and is making, or who choose to minimise it, and I think that given our history and so much of what still operates in the culture, we have made huge strides forward.

However, I am also keenly aware that there are a lot of oppressive laws and practices here that do impact on my life today. We've discussed the maternity issues. I'd like another child, I'm not sure I want to risk having one here. To take another example, I'm in a position where my children have to attend Catholic schools despite not being Catholic and where teacher training is divided on sectarian lines, with a huge emphasis in teacher interviews at primary level on how well teachers will manage to uphold "Catholic ethos" (in a system where only 6% of children nationally can access education that is not of a Catholic ethos). There are a lot of areas that are resistant to change in ways that can be very unhelpful in terms of progress.

But - as I've been arguing - it's complex. If you say some of this, as has been said on this thread, someone will immediately tell you that the UK is no shining virtue too. I did this myself, early in this thread... but when I checked myself and took a bit of a step back from it, I know that I do think a lot of the laws and services are not where they need to be, nor are.

It's complex. How do you say this well? I think it's a country of huge promise, hope and courage which has dragged itself up out of the gutters with an eye on the stars, but which is simultaneously oppressive, defensive and still influenced by its historical past in ways that are not always helpful in the present day. Perhaps all countries are, who knows. I only have anything like intimate knowledge of two - England and Ireland - and inevitably my experiences and knowledges are constrained and shaped by my own context and my own experiences. Everyone's is, it's the nature of being human. We can only filter our own experiences, and we will all be a bit biased and uneven and contradictory in doing so, I guess.

duplodon · 26/05/2015 13:31

Ooops, I was going to get rid of that penultimate paragraph. Hence the truncation and repetition of how complex it is.

duplodon · 26/05/2015 13:37

And since this thread I've looked at that judgement and it does appear credence was given to consent - but ultimately the woman said she hadn't been asked and the midwife said that the woman would have known she was going to do ARM because she had put a sheet under her and there was an amniohook in the room.. and the judge believed the midwife that there was no way she wouldn't have sought consent as it's good practice (when she pretty much wasn't following good practice in any other way!) or that the woman couldn't have not known what was about to happen. There's also a worrying statement about how something else that the witness said in the box couldn't be true as she had never said it to any of the other professionals caring for her since the birth e.g. her psychiatrist, GP and some others.. as clearly, the only way you could say something on the stand that you hadn't said to a professional in another context is if you were lying Hmm.

I think, even if it's not as bad as was first feared when reported in the media, it's a pretty worrying case and though I feel a wee bit better that no one has opened the door for forcible VE's, I wouldn't be resting entirely easily in my bed about it.

duplodon · 26/05/2015 13:41

"Mr Buckley challenged the plaintiff’s evidence that she was not told or warned about the ARM and that the midwife had simply carried out the procedure without preamble. Midwife Kelliher gave evidence that she had discussed the procedure with the plaintiff, she had with her the amnihook and had to get the plaintiff’s co-operation as to the position she was in for the procedure to be carried out. Mrs Hamilton would have seen the hook and would have known what was going to happen because of the sheet that was put under her in bed."

AND

"Since, on the evidence, this was a routine procedure that Ms Kelliher was carrying out for the purpose of diagnosis to see if her fear of foetal distress was justified or not, it does seem strange that she would not have mentioned to the patient what she was going to do and have obtained her consent. The very fact that it was so routine suggests that the midwife would have done so. I am satisfied that the probability is that Midwife Kelliher obtained the plaintiff’s consent and informed her about the ARM that she was going to perform."

Full judgement here: www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/597235d07c04a26a80257d35004d7c25?OpenDocument

BathtimeFunkster · 26/05/2015 13:52

duplodon - Like :)