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?

Duplo, I don't think I could argue with any of that.

Thanks duplo. That was the judgement I read last night. If I had posted it people would have disregarded and say I was trying defend misogyny in Irelabd or something.

Bath "the wellbeing of the foetus she was miscarrying was put ahead of her wellbeing."

No, she was not deemed to be at risk at that point.

Twas, I've tried several times to move this conversation away from me - believe me! I predicted this a few pages back. I'm not sure why you're making comments about me not changing my mind though. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind on this thread with my opinions. We're all entitled to think what we like and we may not understand or agree with others but we can at least be civil.

Just further to that judgement - I think it highlights the importance of not relying on newspapers for facts. The blogger made that mistake and that article obviously misled several people, including posters on this thread.

No, she was not deemed to be at risk at that point.

Correction, she was not deemed at risk of immediate death.

She was at risk. In fact she was already in significant pain, so harm was being done to her.

But until they thought she was dying the left her in agony, getting sicker and sicker, and didn't give her the help she asked for, and that would have saved her life if it had been given when she first asked.

You think it's fine for women to be put at risk of death before they get the help they would be entitled to as human beings in countries that recognise them as such in law.

You think it was fine to massively increase her risk of death with shitty laws and then blame medical malpractice when the risk she was put in deliberately, in the interests of a miscarrying foetus, kills her.

Women die of sepsis in England.

But they don't die of sepsis after days of begging for an intervention that would have saved them if it had been performed on time.

Findings from the investigation :

"Commenting on the publication of the investigation report, HIQA’s Director of Regulation, Phelim Quinn, said: “The investigation findings reflect a failure in the provision of the most basic elements of patient care to Savita Halappanavar. They identified a failure to recognise that she was developing an infection and then a failure to act on the signs of her clinical deterioration in a timely and appropriate manner. The investigation also identified a number of missed opportunities to intervene in her care which, if they had been acted upon, may have resulted in a different outcome for Savita Halappanavar. ”

He added, “Effective care and treatment depends on the regular monitoring and recording of a patient’s clinical observations and recognising their significance, acting appropriately on the findings, escalating concerns and the seamless clinical handover of information relating to each patient within and between clinicians and clinical teams.”

“However, during the course of the investigation, it was clear that the Hospital did not have effective clinical arrangements in place to ensure that this was done. Our investigation uncovered a series of failures in the management, governance and delivery of maternity services at UHG which were not consistent with best practice .”"

Also, from your post it doesn't sound like you're that familiar with the time line of the case.

She wasn't 'left in agony' nor did she beg for an intervention for days. Sorry, but it sounds like you're getting your information from newspaper articles again.

The "timeline" is only relevant if you think it's acceptable to deny treatment to a miscarrying woman that you know increases her risk of death from sepsis.

You want to argue about the exact timing of their eventual intervention.

I think the very fact of that argument is proof that the 8th is what ultimately killed her.

Increasing her risk of death by - what was your terrifying phrase? - "holding out hope for foetus, was unconscionable.

The fact that women die of sepsis in the UK when presenting with similar symptoms makes it worse, not better, that it was ever considered reasonable by anyone to refuse her the treatment she requested.

From the BMJ re practice for miscarriage in the UK:

"In the UK, expectant management (for 7-14 days) is the preferred first-line management strategy for women with a confirmed diagnosis of miscarriage. [63] Exceptions include: women at increased risk of haemorrhage; women at increased risk from the effects of haemorrhage; a history of previous adverse experiences with pregnancy; or evidence of infection."

I don't want to argue about it. I want to point out that saying that she was left in agony and begging for intervention for days isn't an accurate description of what actually occurred - it sounds like you got it from a newspaper. Again, I've already acknowledged that she should have been offered the procedure sooner and she would have been if they had been monitoring her correctly - as per the findings of the report wrt failings to act in a timely manner.

No, that was not my 'terrifying' phrase.

bumbley, have you ever had a missed or partial miscarriage? I have. They did expectant management until I was symptomatic (ie bled spectacularly all over the place because a large chunk of womb lining was stuck in my cervix, passed out as soon as I arrived in the hospital) and then they intervened like big interveney things, I had two doctors rummaging up in my undercarriage and a drip and eventually an ERPC. Fortunately there was no foetal heartbeat at that stage so there was no "chilling effect" to stop them doing whatever they needed to do to help me. In Savita's case it wasn't an uncomplicated missed miscarriage, there was still a foetal heartbeat while her cervix was open and she was becoming unwell.

FFS.

Your refusal to admit that a law that frequently ends up prioritizing a "chance" for the foetus over a very real risk for the woman is in any way problematic is actually starting to disgust me.

Open cervix == infection risk, fans of actual facts.

I am in favour of abortion and it doesn't disgust me at all. It's perfectly reasonable but I know that people on both sides of the abortion issue often have very strong views and there is nothing wrong with that. I am sure those who believe life begins at conception are disgusted by abortion which technically to them is no less wicked than an ISIS or US drone killing.

I'm sorry to hear about your loss leery Yes, I have had a miscarriage. I can share my experience if you like but what exactly would it show? My case wasn't the same as Savita's and neither was yours.

It's not 'prioritizing a "chance" for the foetus over a very real risk for the woman'. They evaluated her and did not consider her to be at risk so they followed expectant management strategy that would also have been used in the UK.

Yes leery, and they should have been looking for that. Hence the findings from the investigation.

Sorry about the autocorrect - it keeps changing leedy to leery.

bumbley in the uk the different management methods are explained and you, the patient, choose how to proceed; conservative, medical or surgical management. Conservative management might be pushed for but ultimately it is your choice.

Granted here in NI you are v v strongly encouraged to allow conservative management (as I was told 'they' don't like to 'interfere with pregnancy' WTAF ) but you are ultimately given the choice of your treatment.

Plus surely later miscarriage = higher risk?

It seems that you are so determined to defend the eighth as the ultimate abortion prevention measure (and it's fine for you to support that even if others think it's v wrong) that you will blindly defend the 'incidental' harm it does tbh.

And on a side but important note sorry to hear about everyone's miscarriage experiences.

Do you think in the UK if a patient presented who was miscarrying, still had a foetal heartbeat, and asked for an ERPC, would they get one? Do you think that refusing the ERPC would be "following the guidelines" and "best practice" and the refusal would be made purely for medical reasons?

Hint:

"When the patient and her husband enquired about the possibility of having a termination, this was not offered or considered possible by the clinical team until the afternoon of the 24th of October due to their assessment of the legal context in which their clinical professional judgement was to be exercised."

The NICE guidelines to wait 7 - 14 days are - from my own reading around my miscarriage - for missed miscarriages where there's no heartbeat and nothing has happened spontaneously yet ie the cervix hasn't opened. It's not a "confirmed miscarriage" if the foetus is still alive.

And I'm still disgusted. It's absolute, gratuitous fetishization of foetal life at all costs, where the mother has to be actually, definitely just about to die (as opposed to "might well die"/"may suffer life long health consequences") before doctors feel confident in acting. Because under the 8th, the health of the mother doesn't matter, as long as she and the foetus are still alive.

"bumbley in the uk the different management methods are explained and you, the patient, choose how to proceed; conservative, medical or surgical management. Conservative management might be pushed for but ultimately it is your choice. "

It's the same in Ireland, actually, once there's no heartbeat.

Thanks jus.

Yes, later miscarriage would also mean higher risk intervention as well. At that stage of pregnancy a surgical procedure would probably have been required - with its associated risks. One of which is higher risk of infection when compared to non-surgical methods.

Leedy, the mother doesn't have to be 'about to die' - it's risk to her life. They could have offered the procedure sooner if they had thought she was ill. They should have acted sooner.

Oh, would you give over with your wide eyed faux-concern about how a surgical procedure having a "higher risk of infection". Her cervix was already open, that's the infection risk right there.

An ERPC is a surgical procedure, I've had one, I needed it.