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 :(

Crikey I'm disappointed with your post at 21:50. There's no need for that. I find debating on here so frustrating, at some point even the most promising of posters resorts to things like that. It really irks me.

Anyway goodnight.

This is absolutely shameful. On so many levels.

It is shameful that Savita didn't have a choice over her body
Shameful that doctors treated her so callously
Shameful that religious mullahs influence law and medicine

Another medical doctor's perspective:
scienceblogs.com/denialism/2012/11/14/abortion-can-be-lifesaving/

It's not about medical expertise Crikey it's about logic and argument

Seriously? Qualified doctors say that an abortion would have saved her - but unqualified Cailin disagrees because of, er, logic?

Words fail me.

You're right - nothing's ever truly proven in science. But there's a balance of probabilities. In this case, that suggests that Savita could have been saved.

Goodnight.

This appears to be death from a critical delay in source control, in the face of septic shock. Removal of the fetus should have occurred emergently when she presented with signs and symptoms of sepsis in order to save her life. This was not done, and she almost certainly died as a result of this delay

From another expert, Cailin. Just so you know.

Just absolutely bollocks. I am so livid at this

An obgyn writes with beautiful clarity why EVERY miscarriage at 17 weeks necessitates the offer of a termination on medical grounds. That to deny a termination under these circumstances can only mean one of 3 things:

1. The medical team knew a termination was medically advisable but bowed to the law against their better medical judgement.
2. The law does provide for such circumstances, but the doctors ignored that provision and chose to act against the woman's best interests in favour of a dying foetus.
3. The doctors were negligent and / or incompetent in diagnosing and treating the infection, since infection must always be suspected whenever, preterm labor, premature rupture of the membranes, or advanced premature cervical dilation occurs.

Every conceivable medical scenario involves offering, not denying a termination for the sake of the mother's health.

cailin I think he has been shot in flames. His wife's dead.

Well the story is not on the headlines of bbc news at 10. Obviously not deemed important enough by the men at the BBC.

I think I can see what Cailin is trying to say: she's worried that pro-life people will seize on the medical necessity of this particular abortion and claim that they are making sure this never happens again by focusing on providing further guidance for the medical exception to the main abortion law.

Instead she feels that we should be focusing on the fact that she should have been able to had the abortion as soon as she asked for it, regardless of whether or not it was medically necessary to save her life.

I think we need to focus on the ECHR ruling which states that as long as the abortion law remains as it is, there is no way that women will be able to have medically competent care because of the "chilling effect" the laws have on medical staff. Therefore, the mere existence of the laws as they stand mean that medical professionals are unable to provide competent medical care to women in Ireland because they're having to worry about possible prosecution.

Framey I just heard it on the news on Radio 4.

We're getting a false dichotomy here - its not either/or.

(a) She should have been allowed the termination to prevent pointless suffering.

All agreed?

but given that she wasn't and then developed infection
(b) then what is standard procedure elsewhere, to complete the miscarriage with medical assistance should have been expedited not delayed until the foetal heartbeat had stopped. Because probably it would lead to better outcome for her.

I think the Doctors failed her, they have a choice, they can elect to respond to certain emergency circumstances, they failed to do that. Shame on them.

What the husband has to say on the medical facts, whilst heartbreaking, will carry less weight than if the medical establishment stand up en masse to say that Savita should have been offered a termination on medical grounds. That it was malpractice to deny her this. That the current law whilst appalling, does not prohibit this under these circumstances.

Send a message to the doctors in Ireland who want to hide behind the current law - this is no defence. A termination was medically advisable, you knew this, and you denied it. A woman died because you knowingly failed to treat her as you should.

I've learned a lot today. I hope other women in Ireland can somehow find their position improved in the short term as these facts become common knowledge.

My thoughts with Savita and her family.

Goodnight all.

Yes I agree Grimma. I don't agree with Cailin but I can see what she's worried about with pro-life people incorrectly claiming they can prevent this situation ever happening again by merely expanding/clarifying the medical exception.

Basically the Irish government and population need to call bullshit on the archaic, misogynist, anti-life twin policies of restriction of contraception and abortion resulting from the insane Catholic natural law teachings and "ensoulment at birth". The Humane Vitae encyclical has caused so much suffering around the world, contributing to great amounts of misery and Pope Benedict XVI is a spineless coward for continuing it and using the ridiculous justification that "what was true yesterday is true today". You'd have to laugh if you weren't crying.

Still no mention on the tv news Xia...

As Xiaosiong said, Caillin's argument is that whether or not the termination had saved her life, she should have been offered the choice of having one. Even if that had NOT saved her life.
Nowhere did Caillin say that she did not believe the prevailing medical opinion that having the termination in a timely manner would have improved her chances of surviving.
The danger Caillin sees - and I agree with her - is that the pro-life camp will focus solely on the life/death issue.

It frustrates me when in some debates in which everybody is in principle in agreement, seems to go out of their way to misunderstand.
But maybe that is just my sleep-deprived, muddled, middle-aged Brian. Which I am now taking to bed .

Cailin I think you are wrong to assert that "the medical evidence does not support" that an abortion would probably have saved her. Yes, the husbands "without a doubt" probably is a bit strong, but I hardly think we can blame him for that. Sorry, didn't mean to piss you off - but I think you're wrong on that aspect.

Maybe I am being a bit black and white but it seems to me that Savita presented with a set of symptoms which (according to the experts we've heard from) indicated that she needed an emergency abortion. This vital treatment was denied her because a fetal heartbeat could still be heard. She was forced to suffer (and ultimately die) to protect an unviable fetus - because the law says that's how it must be.

There's no way we can know whether she 100% would have lived. But her chances would surely have been better with an abortion than without.

also useful as perspective criticallegalthinking.com/2012/11/14/savita-halappanavar-ireland-abortion-and-the-politics-of-death-and-grief/

sorry criticallegalthinking.com/2012/11/14/savita-halappanavar-ireland-abortion-and-the-politics-of-death-and-grief/

Absolutely the doctors failed her.

Were there any medical reasons not to terminate? No -It would be normal procedure elsewhere. Were there medical reasons to terminate? yes.

Were there ethical reasons not to terminate ? No (the foetus was not going to survive). Were there ethical reasons to terminate ? yes (initially, to prevent suffering).

Were there legal reasons not to terminate? From what I've read , actually no. If the consultant misunderstood the law, surely that is negligence on his part, s/he should have known ...if unsure they bloody well should have checked. And if there was any legal bar...if its against medical and ethical reason then the law is the worst sort of ass.

It may be on Radio 4 but it wasn't headlined or trailed on the BBC News at 10 - I've given up waiting on them.

It's true that doctors in Ireland need to make a stand. And it's very true that spineless politicians, who are quite happy to see women die, need to be held to account. Just saw one pathetic example on ITV news of a TD saying 'ooh, people shouldn't use this case to bring abortion into Ireland'. Bastard. Bet he's the kind of creep who was quite happy to look the other way when women were being imprisoned in the Magdelene Laundries for having children outside wedlock, and children were being tormented and abused in Catholic orphanages.

Haven't women and children suffered enough?

No one's going "out of their way to misunderstand", Pacific

It's the lack of legislation that is the real crime. Yes the constitution says abortion can take place when the mother's life is in danger but successive Irish governments since 1992 have refused to put in place any actual legislation.

So what would happen in Ireland if a foetus had a condition incompatible with life - would the mother be forced to carry it to term or travel for an abortion?

Exactly that.