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 :(

Savita should have been given an abortion regardless of any infection risk. She should not have been made to suffer for three days. She would have had that suffering with or without the infection and that that's what's wrong.

couldn't agree more.

And of course the pro-life side will expect him to produce rock solid evidence that the abortion would have saved her

if that's what they do it just discredits them. You can't prove the unprovable. If that's the line they take, massive own goal for them.

Yes Xiao, that's right. She should have had an abortion regardless. What's barbaric is that she had to wait for her baby to die. The infection was secondary to that. But in the end that's what's going to be focused on unfortunately.

That the Irish government needs to legislate IMMEDIATELY regardless of any case is not in dispute. If it hadn't been Savita it would have been somebody else. But it does sound like Savita's case was unusual.

Not my last word after all.

What do you mean Cailin? Why do you want to bring in certainties? Who is saying aborting would 'certainly' have prevented her death? If reducing mc time down from 3 days reduces infection rates (sure there must be good evidence for this) then her chances of survival would have drastically improved. As you say, it'll all come out in the wash at the inquest.

I would bet everything I have that in three months' time we will all be sitting reading the results of the inquest which will say "Hospital followed standard procedure regarding the miscarriage but were negligent in spotting the infection. No evidence was found that an abortion would have prevented the infection" and that'll be that. The issue is with the "standard procedure" which is what people seem to be missing, not with the infection or whether the abortion could have saved her.

Thank you squoosh. ?100 now on its way to Choice Ireland. If anyone else has suggestions of practical actions those of us outside Ireland can take, financial or otherwise, please speak up.

LeBFG - it was her husband who said abortion would have saved her "without a doubt" - that's where the certainties issue is coming in. He is the one setting up an indefensible position.

But you're lumping us in with his comments. Is anyone on here saying the abortion would 'certainly' have saved her life?

Who is saying aborting would 'certainly' have prevented her death?

the husband did.
I get Cailins point, I think - which is that the 'pro-life' camp must not be allowed to distort the issue by focussing on this - which is an unprovable.
The issues are (a) the total unacceptability of allowing a woman to suffer a moment longer than necessary for an unviable foetus and (b) that the balance of probability is that termination would have prevented her death.

Thats where the problem lies. Standard procedure would be to terminate the pregnancy- except if you're in Ireland of course!

I'm afraid, whatever Ireland says after this, this is a debate equally about abortion and medical neglect.

Eventually this wickedness will stop, because the European Court of Human Rights will prevail and the rights of women will finally be put before those of the Catholic Church

This case makes me sick to my stomach

Well done Xiao. I'm going to do the same, hopefully lots of other people will have a similar idea. The anti abortion coffers are huge.

Also LeBFG - allowing a miscarriage to run its natural course is standard medical practice - it is done routinely in the UK too. So as far as that's concerned, the doctors don't have to defend it. What they have to defend is the fact that they didn't treat the infection quickly enough.

What the real issue is is the lack of choice. Allowing the miscarriage to happen naturally is given as a choice in the UK, but it is standard procedure in Ireland. Savita didn't want a natural miscarriage, she wanted an abortion, but was denied that choice. Getting tangled up in the fact that the standard procedure led to infection that wasn't treated quickly enough doesn't help the issue, because doctors can argue infection is a common complication of the procedure and their only failing was not spotting it in time. In fact, the real failing is that Savita did not have a choice to end the pregnancy. If she had had the abortion, she might still have got an infection and she might still have died, and it still would have been tragic. But the infection is not the issue. She should have had the choice not to suffer.

A spokesperson for the miscarriage association said "terminations would be carried out in British hospitals if it became clear that a miscarriage had caused, or was threatening to cause infection that would kill the mother.

Risks from surgery do exist in such cases, she acknowledged, but ?if there was a huge amount of infection then the risks of not doing something about it would be greater than the risks caused? by terminating the pregnancy.

In a case in a British hospital, she said, ?you would hope that they would give medication to speed everything up, to open the cervix and contract the uterus to ensure that the miscarriage was completed quickly."

YY to 'balance of probability' that termination would have improved her chances of a good outcome for her.
For cyring out loud, this is barbaric.
I knew Ireland had not updated its legislation in recent history, but the fact that their Act is from 1861 just boggles my mind!

My stance on termination is very much 'If you don't like it, don't have one'. End of.
How dare anybody else have any say on the matter?!

Her husband was THERE. He is an intelligent man used to analysing information.

I am finding it very insensitive, and probably tasteless, that he is being criticised for giving his opinion on what he saw and heard over those 4 dreadful days.

Put it this way, if she had recovered from the infection, would the abortion issue then not be a problem?

The fact that she died makes the situation horrible and tragic, but a woman shouldn't have to die in order to "prove" she needed an abortion. She should have had an abortion, regardless. If she had survived, it would still be totally justifiable for her to take action based on the fact that the hospital allowed her to suffer needlessly while waiting for the baby to die.

Crikey, if the infection wasn't in the uterus then an abortion would have been pointless

I am wary about getting deeper into a discussion that I'm not qualified for &, as others have said she asked for a termination and was refused one. That's the issue & that's unnacceptable.

However....

According to reports, she was told she was miscarrying & asked for a termination to avoid complications (being a dentist, she'd understand about infection). She was refused and, over the course of the next few days, she did indeed develop a complication - septicemia. If this is correct, it's rather ridiculous for anyone to suggest that an abortion would have made no difference. It very may well have done.

it may very well have done I mean.

Crikey I'm not arguing against you. An abortion could have saved her. We just don't know, and I am betting we will never know. If we focus on whether it could have saved her or not, the whole point of her suffering is lost. It doesn't matter if it could have saved her. She should still not have suffered in the way she did.

Do you see what I'm trying to say?

The pro-choice side are playing right into the pro-lifer's hands by getting embroiled in trying to "prove" the abortion was "necessary" to save her life. It shouldn't have had to be necessary to prevent her death, it was only necessary to prevent needless suffering. Focusing on picky details of whether it could have saved her only gives opportunities for the pro-life side to say "well it couldn't have saved her, therefore it wasn't necessary, therefore we're right."

It isn't standard medical procedure though is it? If she was in this country and her waters broke that early she would have been offered an induction for medical reasons

After an infection has set in, CailinDana, standard procedure is to complete the miscarriage quickly and with medical assistance.

NOT to let things run their course. You are being deliberately obtuse in ignoring this.

We agree on one thing. That there should not need to be a justification made, she should have had the abortion upon request.

But there are women miscarrying slowly in Ireland as we speak. The law has not been changed for their benefit yet. Your insistence that they can all be left to miscarry naturally at no greater risk to their health is doing them a disservice.

Both arguments can and should be made.

One is medical: sometimes a termination will save a woman's life.
One is ethical: a women has a right to bodily autonomy, and a right to life. No ethical justification should be required.

You cannot rewrite medical facts because they spoil the argument you'd like to make.

If people accepted the medical argument more women would not be placed at risk whilst the legislation is prevaricated on yet more.

My previous arguments wrt to the medical side of things were to show that it's just not possible to say definitively "an abortion at this time would have prevented infection." Biologically there is no way to prove that, so setting yourself up with an indefensible argument isn't a good call. And that's what I'm worried the pro-choice side are doing by focusing so much on the fact that she got an infection. The doctors can easily argue that that was just a complication of the normal procedure and while they missed the infection and were negligent on that score, there is nothing to say an abortion would have prevented that. And they'll be right. And the pro-choice side will be left without a leg to stand on.

Forget about the infection and how necessary the abortion was. Focus on the fact that Savita was a scared woman in horrendous pain who begged the doctors to ease her suffering only to be told she had to continue in agony. That is what is incredible and shaming for Ireland.