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:
bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 16:24

Sorry - last post to jus not leedy.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 16:26

It's not 'wide eyed faux concern' it's from that document about what has to be considered for best practice.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 16:26

And the hospital were oh so good at monitoring and managing that infection risk weren't they?

BathtimeFunkster · 26/05/2015 16:28

they followed expectant management strategy that would also have been used in the UK.

Hmm

That is a lie.

You know that's not even remotely true.

Even in Northern Ireland she would have had her choice respected.

leedy · 26/05/2015 16:29

They could have removed that infection risk by terminating the pregnancy -> closing the cervix, and well you know it.

Your continued refusal to acknowledge the big paragraph in the report about how the doctors' decision making when asked about a termination was constrained by the 8th is amazing.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 16:30

And you're completely discounting the infection risk from surgery there....

leedy · 26/05/2015 16:30

Or do you think the couple were just asking for a termination as a convenience rather than an approach that would be less risky? "Gosh, can't wait around in this hospital all day being expectantly managed, things to do, better get it over with now"?

leedy · 26/05/2015 16:34

When I had my ERPC they told me about the (small) risks. They also told me that those risks were less than the infection risk of me going around with a possibly still incomplete miscarriage. Seriously, they wash their hands and stuff these days.

I can't believe you're still coming up with reasons why they chose not to terminate the pregnancy ("the terrible infection risk of surgery! clearly much greater than leaving someone in a situation that actually caused her to die of sepsis!") that aren't "because they felt they legally couldn't".

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 16:39

Your case is different, as was mine.

They knew that they legally could if she was showing signs of infection. They told her this. She was showing signs. They didn't pick up on them.

leedy · 26/05/2015 16:42

"Leedy, the mother doesn't have to be 'about to die' - it's risk to her life."

It's immediate risk to her life. Otherwise I suspect they'd have acted a whole lot sooner. Seriously, can you not see the awfulness of doctors being constrained in their medical decision-making by the heartbeat of a foetus that had basically no chance of survival anyway?

Also I see you've happily ignored the "health" issue. If I was pregnant and it was likely that pregnancy would make me blind or cause me to lose the use of my limbs or to suffer severe psychosis, how would you feel about my terminating?

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 16:43

From the case notes:

"The consultant stated that the patient and her husband enquired about the possibility of using medication to induce miscarriage as they indicated that they did not want a protracted waiting time when the outcome of miscarriage, was inevitable."

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 16:45

"O&G Consultant 1 stated that the patient and her husband were advised of Irish law in relation to this. At interview the consultant stated “Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heart”. The consultant stated that if risk to the mother was to increase a termination would have been possible, but that it would be based on actual risk and not a theoretical risk of infection"

I quoted this earlier. This is going round in circles again.

leedy · 26/05/2015 16:46

"They knew that they legally could if she was showing signs of infection. They told her this. She was showing signs. They didn't pick up on them."

But they legally couldn't until then, even though she was at serious risk of infection and her pregnancy was doomed anyway. "Sorry, can't do anything until you're actually infected and are likely to die. Let's just hang around here hoping no germs get in".

Do you not get that this is wrong?

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 16:48

She wasn't thought to be 'at serious risk' or they would have acted there and then.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 16:49

Let's think about how many women actually experience miscarriages every year and don't need intervention and don't develop infections etc.

leedy · 26/05/2015 16:50

So you think a theoretical risk of infection isn't as important as the continued foetal heartbeat of a doomed foetus. You think it's absolutely fine and dandy that under Irish law, their hands are tied until there's an actual risk to the mother's life.

Great.

We are going round in circles because you keep going LA LA LA CAN'T HEAR YOU THE EIGHTH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT AND JUST SAVES BAAAAABIIIEES SAFEST PLACE IN THE WORLD TO BE PREGNANT IT WAS JUST A STUPID DOCTOR MISTAKE COULD HAVE HAPPENED ANYWHERE LA LA LA.

I agree, they were negligent as well. But the fact that they even had to consider "the unborn" in this case is FUCKED. UP.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 16:51

Obviously they were wrong in this case - hence the findings of the investigation.

leedy · 26/05/2015 16:52

"Let's think about how many women actually experience miscarriages every year and don't need intervention and don't develop infections etc."

What has that got to do with it? Should I also consider all the uncomplicated wanted pregnancies that happen while I'm at it?

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 16:53

Their negligence was what led to her death leery. It's not about being negligent 'as well'.

bumbleymummy · 26/05/2015 16:54

It's got everything to do with how a doctor might perceive something they've seen hundreds of times before. They're not immediately thinking 'this woman is going to die of sepsis we must perform surgery immediately'.

leedy · 26/05/2015 16:54

Do you agree that if she had got the termination she asked for, she wouldn't have died?

leedy · 26/05/2015 16:55

Or, to ward off your inevitable "she could have caught Ebola from a dirty theatre nurse" suggestions, she probably wouldn't have died?

BertrandRussell · 26/05/2015 16:57

"They knew that they legally could if she was showing signs of infection. They told her this. She was showing signs. They didn't pick up on them."

But they also knew that legally they couldn't until she showed signs of infection. So they actually had to wait until she started to be ill before they could intervene. Under what circumstances is that acceptable?

leedy · 26/05/2015 16:57

Actually, I suspect someone coming in who's clearly miscarrying but still has a foetal heartbeat isn't like "all the other uncomplicated miscarriages" that I'm supposed to be thinking about.

BertrandRussell · 26/05/2015 16:58

So it wasn't a case of watchful waiting being the best course of action- it was the only course of action available.