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 :(

Should stress, I have absolutely no medical qualifications - but it seems common sense to me.

Thing is, 5mad, letting someone have a "natural" miscarriage is a viable course of medical action - it happens in hospitals all over the world every day. In this case, Savita didn't want one but she was forced to have one against her wishes, which is the real issue. She was forced to suffer until the baby died which is just awful. It is a side effect of that process that she picked up an infection. She should have been monitored, she wasn't. That's where the hospital was negligent. Claiming that the hospital actually caused her death by not giving the abortion is not correct because it is not possible to ever know that. That's the problem with getting the abortion and infection issues mixed up.

And it's not about knowing where an infection is "picked up from"! Symptoms can describe where it IS, and that's what's relevant.

Yes I do think the law should be changed Crikey, absolutely. I'm not disputing that at all. My worry is that people are trying to claim that the hospital caused her death by not giving the abortion. That is just not accurate. It is impossible to ever know that. Plus, if she already had the infection when she got to hospital (totally possible), then had an abortion and died, what would the outcome be then? The pro-lifers would have a field day. What I'm saying is that the two issues need to be separated and claiming falsely that no abortion=infection=death isn't going to help.

Crikey, she had septicaemia, which is a blood infection.

The abortion and infection issues are interrelated. You cannot separate them.
CailinDana. Can you please give me your opinion on my question to galwaygal. Because although natural miscarriage may be a viable course of action in some circumstances, I am certain that it is the riskiest course of action in others. Just like a natural birth is the best option in many circumstances, but is the riskiest in others.
Can you acknowledge this, at least?

It is a side effect of that process that she picked up an infection

So, she became infected because of the process of suffering (for longer than usual) through a natural miscarriage.

So, actually, it IS possible to know how she became infected and to therefore know that ending the pregnancy could well have prevented this?

Bear in mind, she died of blood poisoning - a very serious complication of infection. If the source of the infection had been removed before it got that far, then surely she could have been saved?

Sorry what was the question verylittle?

X-posted.

You do not know, Cailin that her death was not caused by the hospital's actions, which were prompted by the law, so how can you say anything is inaccurate??

If the source of the infection was the pregnancy, then ending it could have saved her life. How can you dispute that?

I totally see what you're saying Crikey but it's not as simple as that. To give an analogy - these days doctors are very slow to perform a tonsillectomy. It is a recognised course of action to allow someone to have repeated bouts of tonsillitis before performing it. In the course of these repeated bouts a sufferer could get septicaemia and die and the family could claim that the doctor's actions (or lack of action) led to the death. But the doctors could claim they were following procedure and the death was a complication that they weren't responsible for. Do you see what I'm saying? Letting Savita have the miscarriage without intervention wasn't medically incorrect. The fact that she got an infection was an unforeseen consequence but one that is medically recognised and not caused by the doctors directly.

Where the hospital totally fucked up was not monitoring her. They chose a course of action (natural miscarriage) but didn't give her the care to support her, which is negligent.

We can't know for sure until the investigations are complete (or possibly evenn then) whether antibiotics alone, antibiotics plus immediate termination or termination alone may have saved Savita or even whether nothing would have saved her.

What we do apparently know is that Savita was suffering, was told the baby's death was inevitable, asked for a termination of her wanted baby to get her ordeal over with and was refused. That is barbaric and that is down to the law (or lack of clarity in the law) in Ireland and its attitude that women do not have bodily autonomy.

Perhaps this tragic case will finally propel Ireland into the 21st century.

The source of infection wasn't the pregnancy. The source of infection was a dirty hand, a stray piece of faeces, a not entirely clean instrument. It was introduced at some point in the process of miscarriage, and an abortion wouldn't have necessarily cleared it.

That's exactly what I'm saying grimbletart.

Maybe an abortion WOULD, CailinDana! Maybe it WOULD. I know you don't want this to be true. I believe its possible that it COULD.

Why are you so determined to believe that it would have offered her no extra chance at all?

I need to stop arguing this point with CailinDana and Galwaygal.

It is ludicrous that they are suggesting that they KNOW that an earlier termination would not have improved her chances. As a layperson, I know that sometimes it is impossible to properly treat an infection with antibiotics until the source of the infection has been removed.

Splinters can continue to fester until the wound is cleaned.

Periodontal disease can often not be treated successfully despite antibiotics until the tooth has been removed.

Antibiotics are not enough always in the absence of other actions. I don't accept that swiftly terminating an infected pregnancy has no benefit in any circumstance.
I will accept it if someone provides compelling medical evidence of this.

Cailin you are missing the point spectacularly.

In cases of sepsis, there is a source of infection - the place it started. Someone with severe tonsillitis who developed sepsis would have the tonsil out IMMEDIATELY. Rule number one, remove the source of the infection.

You are confusing source of infection (the part of the body that is infected) with origins of the infection (dirty hands, whatever).

The source of Savita's infection was almost certainly pregnancy related, and that should have been ended immediately for clinical reasons.

Women need to stick together and support the right GLOBALLY for the WOMAN to make the decision. Abortion is our right.

Agreed, CrikeyOHare.

Thanks for posting the link to that article, JuliaFlyte, very informative and clear.

In that case what you're arguing is that she should have had a hysterectomy, since the site of infection would have been the uterus Crikey. The baby wasn't the site of infection, that's not medically possible. A baby isn't like a splinter that takes its infection with it when it is removed.

Where the hospital totally fucked up was not monitoring her

No, where they totally fucked up was in refusing her request to terminate a failing pregnancy whether or not that would have saved her. They overrode a patient's express wishes because "Ireland is a Catholic country" and they may gave been afraid of the possible legal consequences.

Removing the baby would not have removed the infection. That's not how human biology works. It might have prevented the infection, who knows. It might have given her a worse infection or cause a haemmorrhage, or go knows what. There's just no point speculating, that's what I'm saying.

Savita should have been given the abortion regardless of whether she would have or could have or did have an infection.

Please google chorioamnionitis Cailin. That is what this woman had and it does not require a hysterectomy.

Maternity care in Ireland is shockingly bad. overcrowded hospitals and poor hygiene standards are standard. The midwife-led clinic I attended had a waiting room that smelled of urine. (I won't bore you with all the things that were wrong about my care.)Unless there is a concern about foetal anomaly, non-private patients receive one dating ultrasound for the duration of the pregnancy.

Pregnancy is, however, the only time when there is free health care for every woman, regardless of her circumstances. This is because constitutionally, legally and morally, the life of her baby is more important than the health of any mother in the country.

Mrs Halappanavar reaped the whirlwind that is poor healthcare and ongoing misogyny in Ireland. My sympathies to her husband and family.

since the site of infection would have been the uterus Crikey

Are either you or I qualified to know that, Cailin? I don't know where the infection was, neither do you.

Infection is a complication of miscarriage and not every woman ends up having a hysterectomy.