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 :(

[camaleon]

verylittlecarrot, I agree that the fact that the foetus is not going to survive 'should be' irrlevant. But in this particular case, I think it makes for a good case of negligence,if not homicide as pointed out by someone else above.
A doctor, or anybody in charge of saving lives cannot hide behind the 'difficulty' of the decision according to a set of regulations to fail so blantly in their main duty.
The woman developed 'shakes/shivering/vomiting/collapses/' is taken blood showing infection and they still insist on waiting for a heartbeat to stop. It is crazy

[scarletforya]

The poor husband has just been on Newstalk there. It is so heartbreaking and needless. Savita was a Hindu. He couldn't understand why these 'laws' were being imposed on her. RIP Savita and her baby.

[Theala]

beginnings Sorry for the confusion. I did understand your post and was in total agreement. The 'you' in my posst was addressed to the politicians and no-voters in the various referendums who are responsible for this appalling situation. That wasn't at all clear because I was on a total rant, sorry.

[sieglinde]

Well, sorry to wreck the rage party, but what actually went wrong was the use of antibiotics or lack thereof; it's been my experience too that hospitals are very sluggish to give them even when all the symptoms of an infection are present. This has happened to me twice, once after a miscarriage, so I speak without any agenda except rather grim experience.

Ending the pregnancy could only have been part of the solution.

[Caoimhe]

What a terrible story! That poor woman and her poor husband.

Ireland really needs to try and drag itself out of the flippin' dark ages. Shame on Enda Kenny and the rest of his scummy, cowardly government.

[verylittlecarrot]

I agree, camaleon, it is crazy.

But I imagine it is not beyond the realm of imagination that the doctors might have been prosecuted for an "illegal termination" had they treated her for infection and induced the miscarriage. Because there will be people who will argue that the foetus "might have survived" and the mother's life "might not have been obviously at risk" and the current laws allow credibility and support to such arguments, although they should not.

[verylittlecarrot]

sieglinde : "sorry to wreck the rage party"?

[fusam]

Poor woman. How barbaric

[scarletforya]

The responsibility here lies with successive Governments kicking the can down the road when it comes to Abortion legislation.

Doctors are terrified of litigation as Ireland is such a litigious nation. Seems here they were more frightened of a malpractice accusation than of a womans death. [mad]

[whiteandyelloworchid]

her poor husband.
my heart goes out to him.

rip mummy and baby xxx

[camaleon]

Sieglinde, I do not think you are wrecking any rage party. I believe this is actually a case, where medical bad practice is camouflage by some 'following the rules' excuse. Because she was a woman and she was pregnant, she died. And some will argue, that precisely because of those facts (which only add to her vulnerability) the doctors were protected by law

[SolidGoldYESBROKEMYSPACEBAR]

This is a bit like what happened to Angela Carder: a culture of institutionalized woman-hating has led to medical staff prioritizing the life of a dying foetus over that of a woman.

[SecondRow]

sieglinde and previous posters who said we do not have the whole story - and indeed pouring over her complete medical records in the media would be questionable anyway - what I would really like to know more about is whether there is an evidence-based protocol for handling prolonged miscarriage which the hospital did or did not adhere to, and whether such a protocol includes prophylactic use of antibiotics before the signs of infection are there - I wonder what would speak against that? As MaryZ said, even if it were harmful to the foetus (which I don't know) they are still allowed to do that to treat the woman.

It seems like the point at which the husband said she was put on antibiotics was way too late, why is this not a standard part of the protocol when the cervix is open and infection is likely?

[scarletforya]

We don't know. Seemingly the inquest will take 3 months.

[verylittlecarrot]

sieglinde Wed 14-Nov-12 13:23:30
"Well, sorry to wreck the rage party, but what actually went wrong was the use of antibiotics or lack thereof;"

Well done on the most inappropriate post of the day.

If you don't feel rage at this poor woman begging for help and being denied a medically necessary induction for three days and then dying as a result, then that speaks volumes about you.

And if you feel "what actually went wrong" is NOT the above, but in fact that earlier antibiotics would have been a wonderful cure-all for her pitiful situation, you are deluding yourself. She got the infection because she her body, with its fully dilated cervix was forced to hang on to a miscarrying foetus for three days. The antibiotics, whilst an important part of her treatment, can not fix this negligence. They were given when the infection was apparent. I would argue that she should have had the termination three days earlier and antibiotics at the same time.

You seem to be able to ignore the entire issue which is the denial of the termination.

[sieglinde]

Prolonged miscarriage is typically treated as normal and one is usually left to bleed at home even fairly late in pregnancy. Believe me, I know.

My point is that we should not overlook the separate but equally misogynistic treatment of miscarriage as 'normal' and the ridiculous lack of knowledge of the common pp infections that follow it. Rage seldom promotes clearheaded thinking.

Camaleon, I agree entirely; medical bad practice is indeed the issue here, and questions of foetal 'rights' have nothing at all to do with the basic failure to diagnose and treat the infection in a timely manner. I'm not arguing for prophlaxis, but for due attention to early symptoms, with which dispiritingly few are acquainted, and for a big broad-spectrum early dose.

Without a hefty dose of antibiotics, abortion would not repeat not have resolved the problem.

[verylittlecarrot]

Without a hefty dose of antibiotics, abortion would not repeat not have resolved the problem.

And without abortion, presumably antibiotics alone would not have resolved the problem.

Or do you believe that her being forced to keep the foetus inside her for three days was irrelevant to the medical outcome?

[5madthings]

galway yes waters can leak andcreseal but this womans cervix was completely dilated, there is no way in that situation that the baby can survive. The infection would have/did kill the baby. Had thar not happened and the baby had actually continued to grow it simply would have put more pressure on the cervix and highly unlikely that it would have developed to a viable gestation


This is a horrific case and it is abhorrent and appalling that this woman was left to suffer like this, horrible waste of life :(

[5madthings]

Exactly carrot they needed to give her antibiotics and remove the fetus. They did both too late :(

[sieglinde]

verylittle, I'm not sure, is the short answer. The fact that the cervix was fully dilated is likely to be just as material.

It's true that eventually an infection could be caused by a mature decomposing foetus, but there's no evidence that this happened here.

On the face of it, and without the poor woman's chart I'd say horses, not zebras - infection can occur with or without a dead foetus as long as the cervix is open.

Why do you assume I am arguing about a termination? I'm making a separate but germane point about crap treatment of infections.

[verylittlecarrot]

sieglinde, you sound as if you have medical knowledge, which I do not. Yet I'm still confused about your stance. Her cervix was open, as you say, for three days.

If she had been given the termination she requested, along with antibiotics, as soon as she requested it, I assume her cervix would then be closed and the threat of life-threatening infection would have been reduced for those three days, instead of being allowed to progress.

Is that not correct?

[DyeInTheEar]

I think it's also the fact they were told "this is a Catholic Country" that makes this about abortion / foetal rights and not just about whether or not it was simply a case of her needing antibiotics.

[JammySplodger]

What an awful, upsetting story. My heart goes out to her husband.

I do hope things change very, very soon.

[verylittlecarrot]

server ate my post
sieglinde, to answer your question "Why do you assume I am arguing about a termination?"
Because that was the thrust of this thread until you wrote "Well, sorry to wreck the rage party, but what actually went wrong was..."
which implies that the denial of the termination for three days is NOT "what actually went wrong"
And the use of the word "rage party" also insensitively suggests that there is some sort of unsavoury glee being enjoyed along here with misguided outrage.
When in fact rage is an entirely appropriate response to this situation. And I doubt anyone is enjoying this discussion.

[camaleon]

of course it is an 'abortion' case. They used the abortion laws as an excuse for what looks as a hideous medical treatment, and I would argue that the comment about the 'catholic country', makes it also borderline xenophobic/racist/ or whatever. Under the circumsntances, a mother in a foreing country, miscarrying and probably feeling as terrible as you can expect to end dying, was 'reminded' that she was not at home.