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?

No, I couldn't care less if you agreed with me or not, what frustrates me is that you have an agenda but have never been straight enough to admit it, instead you dance around the topics, defending archaic, misogynistic, inhumane laws and treatment of women.

Anyway, I'm out.

Thank you Sabrinna

No Sabrinna, she didn't - see key causal factors in posts above. The law would have allowed her to have an abortion long before she 'collapsed with sepsis' - she was at risk they didn't act when they could have.

It's not just me calling it 'medical mismanagement' - it's what lead to her death.

Savita was denied a termination she wanted because the baby wouldn't survive- true or false?

Lucybabs was denied a termination she wanted because he baby wouldn't survive - true or false?

Babyfaced - the same.

You know very well that without the anti abortion laws, Savita would have been allowed a termination immediately. There really is no arguing with that. She would not have spent 2 days in trauma and pain, she would have been far more likely to survive.

The point is that even with the law she could have been given a termination - she was at risk. They did not act when they could have.

This has all been said before.

She was not left 'in pain' for 2 days.

bumbley I don't think anyone is saying the law didn't allow an earlier surgical intervention. On one interpretation of it. But the medics didn't think that it did and they themselves did say it was a factor in delay - their confusion re interpreting the law.

Honestly and sincerely - you can't separate interpretation of the law from the law. Well you can of course but you then render the law meaningless - just words with apparently no need or potential to be interpreted by humans. That's not how it works. Almost all accepted jurisprudence backs this point, that law is not and cannot be distinct from it's interpretation. Yes there can be different interpretations but the state should aim to legislate as clearly as possible.

So that's not acceptable, this abject confusion. Whether you want to believe that the eighth should or does serve an otherwise good purpose (which I don't) - it just isn't ok to have it creating this confusion.

But more pertinently the eighth should be struck out, repealed, condemned as evil and consigned to the annals of history because grown competent autonomous women asking for terminations should be given them by a compassionate and intelligent healthcare system. You don't agree with this I know. That's one thing. But I don't understand the denial of this right in favour of an attempt to vindicate an empty (as in the right couldn't possibly manifest or be realised in real terms) right to life of a doomed foetus.

Bumbley, I've just checked the HSE report. It states that "Legislative factors affecting medical considerations." were an Institutional Factor in Key Causal Factor 2. That is a direct quote.

Sorry jus but I think that sounds like an excuse and possibly just an attempt to try to cover their negligent asses themselves by blaming it on 'confusion interpreting the law'. They failed in their most basic duty of care to her - care that was by no means dictating by that law.

-Inadequate assessment and monitoring
-Failure to devise and follow a plan of care
-Non adherence to clinical guidelines

There are guidelines for monitoring a woman when her waters break - they didn't follow these. No law stops them from adequately assessing and monitoring a patient and or making and following care plans. If they'd picked up on the fact that she was at risk there would have been no issue with the abortion. They didn't pick up on it for the reasons given above. They were at fault. If people want to give them a get out of jail free card and blame it on 'confusion about the law' then fair enough. I don't agree with that and I won't be joining them.

dictated by that law

care that was by no means dictating by that law.

Yes it was.

Her husband reports that Savita asked "can we terminate the baby?"

Katherine Astbury replied: Unfortunately I cannot. This is a Catholic country. We are bound by the law. We cannot terminate the foetus when it’s still alive

But for that law - Savita would have been allowed a termination.

Legislative factors affecting medical care was a material factor in Key Causal Factor 2.

Complete quote -

"They failed in their most basic duty of care to her - care that was by no means dictating by that law.

-Inadequate assessment and monitoring
-Failure to devise and follow a plan of care
-Non adherence to clinical guidelines"

Where does that law say that you can't monitor a woman regularly and as per the guidelines for early rupture of membranes? Where does it say they can't devise a plan of care and follow it?

From Key Causal Factor 2:

"The investigation team
emphasises that, in the legal context related to termination in Ireland, there is a need for
increased vigilance in clinical assessment of the patient in relation to the risk of infection,
especially, infection in the uterus as failure to offer termination of pregnancy directly
increases these risks.
The investigation team established that there was no documentation of a comprehensive
plan, including appropriate laboratory tests and follow up to monitor for infection. A pulse
rate greater than 100 should have triggered tests for white blood cell count/differential count
and C-reactive protein and this would support a diagnosis of sepsis.
Further significant change in the patient’s condition with a pulse rate of 160/min, hypotension
and fever is consistent with sepsis and a clinical suspicion of severe sepsis in this clinical
context. This should have been pro-actively looked for by performing and following up on a
test for serum lactate. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecology Green-top
Guideline No. 64a (April 2012), Bacterial Sepsis in Pregnancy”; appendix 1 states:
“Blood cultures are the key investigation and should be obtained prior to antibiotic
administration’ however, antibiotic treatment should be started without waiting for
microbiology results.
Serum lactate should be measured within six hours of suspicion of severe sepsis in
order to guide management. Serum lactate ? 4 mmol/l is indicative of tissue
hypoperfusion”.
By 00.30hrs on the 23rd of October, 24 hours had elapsed since the spontaneous rupture of
the patient’s membranes. Clinical evidence within the literature suggests that the risk of
infection in the uterus increases after 24 hours and the balance of risks between
72
conservative management and intervention is therefore changed. This means that the clinical
situation needs constant review and the probable need for termination increases with time. "

Give them an excuse if you want. I won't be joining you.

And the bit you've omitted:

Legislative factors affecting medical care was a material factor in Key Causal Factor 2.

Sabrinna, you should read the whole thing - not just look at the diagram.

I have read it. The diagram, nevertheless, does state that, does it not? Or they wouldn't have, you know, put it in.

From the High court:

" I believe that the law in this
State is that surgical intervention which has the effect of terminating pregnancy
bona fide undertaken to save the life of the mother where she is in danger of
death is permissible under the Constitution and the law. The danger has to
represent a substantial risk to her life though this does not necessarily have to be
an imminent danger of instant death. The law does not require the doctors to wait
until the mother is in peril of immediate death. "

For those who were suggesting that the law means that they had to wait until she was severely ill before they could act.

Ok Sabrina, based on your reading of it - How do you think the legislative factors were a material factor in Key Causal Factor 2?

So, as I said, and the HSE said - legislative considerations were a factor.

Now, read back jusdepamplemousses's post at 21:50 re the 'law' and 'interpretation of the law'.

How do you think they were? Based on your reading of the report.

How do you not? Do you think they wrote it in there for nothing?

I'm asking how you think they were a material factor based on what you read.

Is it not enough for you that the HSE named it as a contributory factor?

What difference does my take on it make? You think if you pick holes in what I think, somehow it will make the HSE wrong?!

bumbley is just waaaaay too invested for some reason in the Eighth never having any tragic consequences, ever.

So you don't actually know why it's there?

Waaaay too invested, leedy. Go on then bumbley, enlighten me.