Woman dies in Galway after being denied termination

[AThingInYourLife]

Holy evil pro-life bastards, batman

The wonder is it that there haven't been more

RIP Savita Halappanavar :(

Cailín is right that Savita's condition was not sufficiently life threatening to merit a termination of her pregnancy.

And that fact is scandalous.

Crikey - there is no way of knowing where the infection came from. It certainly didn't come from the foetus, that is medically impossible. It might have started before she even went to the hospital, or when she had her first internal. It is by no means certain that having an abortion would have stopped it.

This is a good article about the legal situation here

IMO abortions should not be a government issue.

All women should be able be to have an abortion if that what she has decided.

Tonsillitis can BECOME life threatening. Miscarriage can BECOME life threatening. Plenty of people have died throughout the ages of both of these things, Cailin - and it's modern medicine that's made death from them uncommon now. That same modern medicine that was denied Savita.

I'm just glad that the eyes of the world are today focussed on Ireland's medieval abortion laws.

Yes, it can BECOME life threatening. But abortion is not available under those circumstances in Ireland. I agree that Savita should have been given an abortion, straight away. But by denying her it, the doctors were following the letter of the law, as it stands.

squoosh Agreed. Wrongful death and yet ANOTHER trip back to the European Court of Human Rights for Ireland.

A disgrace. A tragic disgrace.

Cailin is anti abortion. Full stop. Unless I've mixed you up with another poster?

5mad - a miscarriage isn't automatically life threatening. Thousands of women have them every day (sadly) without any complications. Savita's mc became life threatening due to lack of monitoring and lack of antibiotics.

verylittlecarrot - "a. Termination on day 1 with immediate antibiotics is better than b. allow infection to progress for 3 days then terminate, then treat.
Don't you agree with this? No, because they should have treated with immediate antibiotics from day 1. The eprc once the heartbeat had stopped was done, it was the antibiotics that came too late. It is not possible to say that she had the infection from day 1, she might not have contracted the infection til later, and terminating would not have necessaily have prevented this. I don't see how terminating the pregnancy would have improved her medical chances of reducing the chances of getting an infection, termination is itself gives a risk of infection.

CailinDana
"But mixing up the abortion and infection issues won't help - it'll just complicate the whole thing and bury the totally relevant abortion arguments IMO. Claiming that Savita died due to not having an abortion isn't accurate."

So Wrong. Your stance stifles the debate and lends support to the position that abortion isn't going to help save your life in any circumstances. Just give the antibiotics and then we've done all we can do medically.

If I found myself in this poor woman's position, I'd like to know the actual medical facts. Not to be told that my having an abortion, or not having one, makes no difference to my outcome as long as antibiotics are prescribed. Because CailinDana on Mumsnet says so.

If you don't actually have any medical basis for making such a blatant statement stop bloody making it.

No I'm not anti abortion full stop Narked. I'm not 100% pro-choice either (it's complicated) but I believe in Savita's case an abortion should absolutely have been given, right away, no question.

No verylittle I won't. Telling others to stop debating doesn't do much to enhance the debate either IMO.

I must have mixed you up with someone else. I thought you were an 'only when the health of the mother is at physical risk' person.

cailin

You keep making out like the infection is some unknowable mystery from out of left-field. It's not.

There is foreseeability in medical and legal circles. A medical expert, which is not you, will tell the courts.

If it had been an infection of the thumb nail then the abortion wouldn't have helped. If it was, as is likely, an infection of the womb, then clearing the womb, womb lining and effectively clearing the site of infected tissue would have helped immensely.

galwaygal, let me understand you then. Your position is this:
a. treat with antibiotics on day 1. Allow miscarriage to continue for 3 days and hope that this is effective despite the prolonged open cervix. Terminate after heartbeat stops.

and you are certain that this would not have a worse medical outcome for the mother than
b. treat with antibiotics on day 1. Medically manage miscarriage on day 1. Ensure uterus is clear and cervix closed on day 1.

Because I think b offers a better chance. What do you know that I don't?

Mixxy, the risk of infection in a miscarriage is well known. But you cannot pinpoint exactly where someone picked up an infection from, it's just not possible. You don't need to be a medical expert to know that, it's basic science.

I never said miscarriage was automatically life threatening, i said it can.be in cases of blood loss and infection. And i know women have miscarriages every day i have had two myself.

You cannot categorically state that performing the abirtion earlier would not have helped her and by knowing the fetus was not viable and yet leaving her they were placing her life at risk. Each day that risk.did increase, being in hospital increases your risk if catching an infection for most people let alone someone with an.open cervix and leaking waters.

narked exactly it would have helped clear the infection.

Cailin, feel free to keep debating. I haven't said you should stop.

But stating as fact that swiftly medically managing a miscarriage can not improve outcomes vs allowing a 3 day miscarriage...that is stating something as fact when it is not.

That isn't debating.

You should know the difference.

Cailin If you agree that Savita should have had an abortion, then surely you support a law change that would allow women like her to have the care that they need? We are all well aware of how the law stands - that's the problem!

And while the foetus itself may not have been the source of the infection, it was clearly pregnancy related, so a termination BEFORE she developed sepsis could well have made a massive difference.

but what a terrible assumption is suggested by that parenthesis squoosh (I know you are quoting, not shooting messenger!) real and substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother

as the day goes on it seems to be that there are two quite different discussions happening (1) what happened in Galway and the questions of negligence that arise and (2) a reopening of the can of worms that is abortion in Ireland. I think this case was not 'about' abortion, it was about the medical management of miscarriage - and it was irresponsible of the media to use the term 'termination', even if this is what the patient herself (and her husband) had used.

I agree with whoever said that pro-choice positions are poorly represented here - it is political death (cf. Ivana Bacik). I am English, have lived here for a long time, and wouldn't describe myself as pro-abortion - certainly not on demand, and certainly not after 14-15 weeks, unless there is very good reason (e.g. the foetus has a condition incompatible with life, or with a good quality of life). We were nearly in this position ourselves with our second, as results came back with high odds and it was painful to us to have our options discussed in terms of euphemism ('you can go to England') as if having a severely disabled foetus was somehow a source of shame. I also recognise though, that for a lot of people (not just Irish people by any means!) the suggestion that they would consider abortion in such as case would also be deeply offensive.