Thread: Irish abortion Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028669

Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :
 
(Disclaimer: I am neither a lawyer or a doctor. Anything I say here is just my uneducated opinion)

Irish abortion law is rather unclear. Wikipedia has a summary.
In practice, a woman cannot acquire an abortion in Ireland. She is free to travel elsewhere in the EU to obtain one, and a doctor is obliged to supply information on travelling if she requests it.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled earlier this year that Irish law must make it clear whether or not abortion is legal here.

The eighth amendment to the constitution states:
quote:
The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
Today the story of Savita Halappanavar is all over the headlines.

Investigations/enquiries are under way so what happenned might not be exactly the same as what was reported. I'll try to post updates as I become aware of them.

Facts as far as I can tell:
She was already miscarrying her baby when she got to the hospital. She was 17 weeks pregnant. Her doctors refused to induce her until after the foetal heartbeat had stopped - that took two and a half days (with her in severe pain for those days). She died shortly after from septicaemia.

My opinion:
If she was already miscarrying, and presumably at 17 weeks the baby would not have been viable, what were they trying to achieve? How does this help to preserve life?
As far as I can tell, she didn't have symptoms of septicaemia until after the foetus was removed. But she was in severe pain, she was already miscarrying, and she and her husband requested more than once for her to be induced/have a medical abortion.
According to stories/anecdotes I'm hearing on the radio today, doctors are not legally allowed to do anything until the woman is definitely not pregnant any more - even in an ectopic pregnancy, septicaemia, whatever.

It seems like current muddy laws mean that if a woman in Ireland wants an abortion, it's easy enough - she can just hop on a plane or a ferry to England or Wales and get one there.
If she doesn't want an abortion but she needs treatment to save her life (or health) while she is living in Ireland, she can't have one if it would cause death of the baby.

What are other people's thoughts?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
You have more or less got it right. However the situation is very complicated. The first thing to note is that it is a constitutional issue and the constitution in Ireland cannot be changed without a public referendum. On this particular issue the government has 'staged' a referendum many times and horrifically botched it for political purposes. Now there are many varied and complicated reasons as to why a majority political party would want to host a referendum they know they will deliberately botch. It's very difficult to outline all of them here, so I will try to give something of an overview.

Not so very long ago - and to some extent still today (but not with the same power and influence, especially after reports on another scandal) church orders basically ran the health service in Ireland. For the prevailing party of the day, when Ireland gained her independence, money was a serious issue and the government saw the church and her orders (who were willing to provide a health service) as a cheap way of getting the job done. Over time the health service developed into what we have today, with less and less influence of the orders, but still a very discernable presence. Any time this issue came up in a referendum, the full might of the Catholic church both at home and abroad swung into action. I remember some of the public debates, and ugly doesn't even come close to how they were conducted and you would not believe the kind of nonsense that was preached from pulpits. Now the government knew that when it was failing on something, or had a horrible record of doing something wrong that made it's opinion polls collapse, it could wheel out this old chestnut and distract attention away from all of their failings for months on end. In some cases they were also given the prize of distraction by other parties begging them for a referendum. But ultimately they knew that the church going public - who were active voters - would be told what to vote by their priest from the pulpit and that they would be bad catholics if they did anything else; all backed up by stern statements from the Vatican. Now this was a time in Ireland when people generally idolised priests to be honest and would actually take heed of what they said they should do.

The 2002 referendum was the great hope of a lot of people that we might get an amazing result that so many people had been hoping and praying for; namely a limited allowance of abortion in specific circumstances, both medical and pastoral following a botched conservative referendum. Fiana Fail deliberately botched it again by actually producing an opposite argument for the intial referendum, but it was felt by many that this might open the door to a proper referendum on the whole topic. Essentially the party tried to make the referendum a conservative attachment to the abortion bill, but it was defeated. The wording was confusing, the material delivered to the voters doors was next to useless and it was all to try and make sure that they retained what they considered to be their loyal Catholic voters. It was a travesty, and no further referendum came out of it as a result. The church had tried to throw its weight behind it, but it was already being marred by abuse scandals.

Today, there are repeated requests to put it to a referendum again, but no party really wants to touch that one while in office, but hopefully they will be forced into it. Hospital employees don't know how to deal with situations like the Savita Halappanavar one and they are terrified of being sued or loosing their jobs. That might sound odd, but many hospital trusts are still dominated by members of orders today.

There is one reason why the referendum may not come soon though. We recently had one (ie, a few days ago) and it was slightly botched for yet more complex reasons. In any referendum the government must now provide material that is unbiased and presents two clear sides of the argument for and against (they didn't always have to do this). But the recent referendum was to do with the rights of children and nobody could come up with a negative. Well before the referendum, Fine Gael and Labour were literally begging the parties to think up some negatives so they could distribute the material for the referendum. the result was that it passed ok, but some ejit (likely prompted by Sinn Fein - they do the same thing in the North to stir up trouble) took a high court case to say the government had failed in its duty to provide two sides to the argument in its literature delivered to voters doors. The result is that this government won't want to touch such an emotive issue, particularly in light of the high court ruling that had no other choice but to uphold the complaint. We can only hope and pray that Sinn Fein shut the hell up about the governments failing in this regard (noting they offered nothing constructive whatsoever to the entire issue throughout the campaign) so that the government can actually get on with producing a sensible and well worded document for a referendum on abortion. It will come I think, but its a question of when; and of course what the wording will be. It's a pretty appalling situation, but one that has been very poorly handled time an time again for political reasons.
 
Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :
 
Apparently a thousand people are outside the dail (parliament) protesting in reaction to this case. Story [url] http://m.rte.ie/news/2012/1114/demonstration-outside-leinster-house-over-abortion.html[/url] here.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
And in a case of the worst timing imaginable:

quote:
AN INTERNATIONAL symposium on maternal healthcare in Dublin at the weekend has concluded that abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother.

Eamon O’Dwyer, professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynaecology at NUI Galway and a conference organiser, said its outcome would provide “clarity and confirmation” to doctors and legislators dealing with these issues.

<snip>

“We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

“We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

I'm sure Professor O'Dwyer will be happy to explain how this relats to the particulars of this case to the press.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
It is too bad this thread isn't in hell. When I saw her beautiful, smiling face and then read about what she and her dear husband endured and the wanton cruelty and complete disregard for her life, humanity and suffering that occurred I want to cry. This whole movement is about hating women. Period. Luckily, more and more people are seeing through the pseudo 'pro life' facade and are fighting to have proper medical care replace Medieval torture. The clinic in Belfast is a start and hopefully the decline of Catholicism will usher in a new and better era for women.

-and I say this as someone who lived in Ireland and loves both the country and the people.

[ 14. November 2012, 22:23: Message edited by: art dunce ]
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Irish torture of mothers.
 
Posted by First Witness (# 14138) on :
 
Havng read the story it would seem that she may have lost the baby due to being ill.
That they overlooked the cause because of the symptoms being masked by the miscarriage.

Seems neglect was the reason she lost her life and that of her child. No hospital would remove a living baby but they should have carried out checks to see if the symptoms were masking anything else.

It is a very sad story but it is a sickening blow for this to happen in this day and age.
 
Posted by art dunce (# 9258) on :
 
Sorry my second link from Irish Times not there.

"They viewed symphysiotomy (wrongly) as a gateway to childbearing without limitation, seeing Caesarean section – the norm for difficult births – as morally hazardous, capping family size and leading to sterilisation and contraception. Symphysiotomy was promoted as permanently widening the pelvis, enabling an unlimited number of vaginal deliveries, whereas four C-sections was widely regarded as the maximum for safety. "
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by First Witness:
Havng read the story it would seem that she may have lost the baby due to being ill.
That they overlooked the cause because of the symptoms being masked by the miscarriage.

Seems neglect was the reason she lost her life and that of her child. No hospital would remove a living baby but they should have carried out checks to see if the symptoms were masking anything else.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call bullshit on this "no hospital would ever perform an abortion!" line of reasoning. What's your basis for this, exactly?

Unless you mean "no Irish hospital would ever perform an abortion!", which is more or less the point of this thread.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
They were so pro-life that two lives died.
 
Posted by First Witness (# 14138) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by First Witness:
Havng read the story it would seem that she may have lost the baby due to being ill.
That they overlooked the cause because of the symptoms being masked by the miscarriage.

Seems neglect was the reason she lost her life and that of her child. No hospital would remove a living baby but they should have carried out checks to see if the symptoms were masking anything else.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to call bullshit on this "no hospital would ever perform an abortion!" line of reasoning. What's your basis for this, exactly?

Unless you mean "no Irish hospital would ever perform an abortion!", which is more or less the point of this thread.

My line of reasoning that no hospital would perform an abortion where there is an heartbeat from the baby is based on personal experience.

I miscarried twins at about 18 weeks. Only one twin had come away but the other one was still in the womb. Before they did any evactuation of matter from the womb they checked to see if their was any heart beat to see if the baby was still alive. It wasn't so they had to remove the baby.

My sister also had a miscarriage and the baby had come away but the bleeding stopped before they took her to theatre to remove the after birth.
They scanned her and found an heart beat she had been carrying twins but lost one of them.

So I am speaking from personal experience and knowledge of what happens during the loss of a baby and where a baby can survive even though another has miscarried.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
That doesn't seem to match up with the NHS webpage on abortion, which lists "personal circumstances" and "health risk to the mother" as reasons for abortion. There doesn't seem to be any mention of a "no heartbeat" requirement, and I don't see how there could be one if "personal circumstances" is a reason to have an abortion.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Croesos, that's because this case is in Ireland, a different country with different laws and a different health service to the UK. It is also a catholic country.

Yes, 6 counties in the north east corner of the island are part of the UK, but the rest is not. And Northern Ireland has only just opened its first abortion clinic. Until now, any Irish woman, Northern Irish or Irish, wanting an abortion was likely to come to England.
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
I had a miscarriage in 1998; I hemorrhaged and had to have an emergency ERPOC (Evacuation of the Retained Products of Conception.)I had been scanned, and there was no heartbeat. In 2001 I was again miscarrying, and bleeding heavily. I'd already had the first scan, so we knew it wasn't twins. This time they didn't scan for a heartbeat. The doctor told me that it was possible that there might still be a heartbeat, but that the baby couldn't survive. As he put it, the question wasn't "Is the baby alive or dead?" but "Is the baby dying or dead?"

Technically, my 2001 pregnancy might have involved my baby being aborted a few hours before it would have died in the womb, or it might have been already dead.

My view is that if God had wanted that baby to live, I wouldn't have been in hospital, bleeding heavily, with a dangerously dropping BP. It's not that I hadn't told God often enough in prayer that I desperately wanted that baby to live!

So my experience is that no, they don't always check for a heartbeat in the UK.

[ 15. November 2012, 09:24: Message edited by: North East Quine ]
 
Posted by Liopleurodon (# 4836) on :
 
The "except to save the life of the mother" clauses in abortion law in various countries sound reasonable enough, but in reality they're always likely to lead to this kind of situation because medical practice always relies on weighing up risks and possible outcomes. It looks as though what happened here was that although the patient was clearly unwell, she wasn't clearly at risk of death, so intervention was left until it was too late. These rules tend to behave as though it's always a clearcut situation: Ms A. will definitely survive pregnancy, whereas Ms B. definitely won't. It would be simpler if biology worked that way but it doesn't - there is always a balance of risk.

So when the mother's life is at risk, how much at risk does it need to be? A 1% chance of death before delivery? An 80% chance? The trouble is that a 1% chance can turn into an 80% chance with alarming speed, because pregnancy is a risky thing to go through when it starts to go wrong. At that point you need doctors to have the freedom to step in and do what needs to be done quickly rather than having to faff about and get legal advice.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Croesos, that's because this case is in Ireland, a different country with different laws and a different health service to the UK. It is also a catholic country.

I was using the NHS website because First Witness' profile claims to originate in the UK.
 
Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by First Witness:
Having read the story it would seem that she may have lost the baby due to being ill.
That they overlooked the cause because of the symptoms being masked by the miscarriage.

I found on the RTE website a timeline of her case according to the hospital.

This article describes events as the husband has reported them.

Quote from the second of those:
quote:
Mr Halappanavar requested that his wife be seen by a doctor and he was told that there was a cervical dilation and that they did not think the baby would survive.
He said he was told it would all be over in four or five hours and that his wife could then go home.

(my bold)
This was on the Sunday morning. She didn't miscarry (according to the hospital timeline) until the Tuesday.

According to some reports (it was in the irish Times report that I linked in the OP - can't find reference to it today), she died of septicaemia (blood poisoning). It's my understanding that this can be caused by having things like, oh, a dying baby inside you for two days.

People may be interested in
this BBC article wondering if a similar case could have happened in Northern Ireland, where abortion laws are stricter than England, Wales & Scotland, but slightly more relaxed than the Republic.

ETA: even the Republic of Ireland allows abortion to save the life of the mother (eg ectopic pregnancies). It's also allowed to have, for instance, cancer treatment which may cause miscarriage/death of the baby as a 'side effect'. The thing with this case seems to be that her life didn't appear to be in danger until after she actually miscarried.

This case scares me so much. I live here. This could be me, or my friends, their sisters or their wives.

[ 15. November 2012, 12:30: Message edited by: cheesymarzipan ]
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
Irish torture of mothers.

Found more info.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Liopleurodon:
quote:
These rules tend to behave as though it's always a clearcut situation: Ms A. will definitely survive pregnancy, whereas Ms B. definitely won't. It would be simpler if biology worked that way but it doesn't - there is always a balance of risk.

So when the mother's life is at risk, how much at risk does it need to be?

Good question. And I think the only person who should have a right to decide this is the one who is risking her life. There are many cases of women who have refused medical treatment that would endanger their unborn babies or chosen to continue with high-risk pregnancies, and their courage is admirable (thinking of NEQ in particular). But I don't think it is something that should be required by law, any more than a man is required by law to run into a burning building in order to save someone else.

Perhaps in the future it will be possible to transfer the developing foetus out of the mother's body and into someone else's. At that time I expect abortion clinics will be inundated with pro-life volunteers willing to offer their own bodies as alternative incubators... won't they?
 
Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :
 
quote:
their courage is admirable (thinking of NEQ in particular).
At the time it was more a case of me sticking my fingers in my ears and saying "I can't hear you. Lalalalalala" interspersed with wibbles and the consumption of chocolate, lots of chocolate. Also, I had absolute faith in Aberdeen Maternity Hospital to not actually let me die.

Anyone who knows me in RL would not have described me as "courageous" ("bone-headed" perhaps) and at least one doctor described me as being "in denial."

But thank you, Jane R!
 
Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by art dunce:
It is too bad this thread isn't in hell. When I saw her beautiful, smiling face and then read about what she and her dear husband endured and the wanton cruelty and complete disregard for her life, humanity and suffering that occurred I want to cry. This whole movement is about hating women. Period. Luckily, more and more people are seeing through the pseudo 'pro life' facade and are fighting to have proper medical care replace Medieval torture. The clinic in Belfast is a start and hopefully the decline of Catholicism will usher in a new and better era for women.

-and I say this as someone who lived in Ireland and loves both the country and the people.

For a lot of people of no faith this is also extreamily upsetting. The presenter of Young Turks had a melt down over it.

WARNING LOTS OF SWEARING IN THIS VIDEO.


Young Turks comment on Irish abortion case

Does he straw man? Is his anger at the effects of religious power in general justified?
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Liopleurodon:
quote:
These rules tend to behave as though it's always a clearcut situation: Ms A. will definitely survive pregnancy, whereas Ms B. definitely won't. It would be simpler if biology worked that way but it doesn't - there is always a balance of risk.

So when the mother's life is at risk, how much at risk does it need to be?

Good question. And I think the only person who should have a right to decide this is the one who is risking her life.
This. Every pregnancy is potentially life-threatening; any number of things can "go wrong." Asking someone else to risk their life for your philosophy is akin to slavery, unless they're in the army or something.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
NEQ:
quote:
Anyone who knows me in RL would not have described me as "courageous" ("bone-headed" perhaps) and at least one doctor described me as being "in denial."
Does it have to be one or the other? Why not all three at once, with a side order of 'scared shitless'? [Biased]

Reality is messy.

[ 19. November 2012, 09:27: Message edited by: Jane R ]
 
Posted by Ronald Binge (# 9002) on :
 
The best and succinct explanation of the legal and political vacuum that lead to the death of Savita - from Gene Kerrigan in yesterday's Sunday Independent.

Gene Kerrigan, Sunday Independent 18th November 2012
 
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :
 
The vacuum isn't the problem -- Canada has a vacuum.

Nature abhors a vacuum. Ireland's problem is the vacuum has filled up with misogyny, and the church has played a major role.
 
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on :
 
Hi,

Sorry to jump into this discussion late. I'm in a "sorta anti-abortion but not an absolutist but vacillating quiet a bit" position at the moment, trying to clarify how I feel about the recent death of Savita Halappanavar in an Irish hospital.

Catholic sources online seem to be saying that both Irish abortion policy and practice in hospitals and catholic moral theology say that the miscarrying baby could have been 'removed', e.g.

William Oddie, Catholic Herald:
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/commentandblogs/2012/11/15/the-tragic-death-of-savita-halappanavar-should-not-be-exploited-to -sweep-away-irish-abortion-law-under-which-she-could-legally-have-been-saved/

"on the face of it, a refusal to save Mrs Halappanavar’s life by inducing her unborn child, when it was clear that her death would in any case lead to the death of the child (this in fact happened in this case), does not seem to be consistent either with Catholic moral theology or, it is now being claimed, with Irish law or the guidelines which govern medical practice in such cases."


Eilís Mulroy, Irish Independent:
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/eils-mulroy-prochoice-side-must-not-hijack-this-terrible-event-3294723.html

"The question that needs to be asked is: was Ms Halappanavar treated in line with existing obstetrical practice in Ireland? In this kind of situation the baby can be induced early (though is very unlikely to survive). The decision to induce labour early would be fully in compliance with the law and the current guidelines set out for doctors by the Irish Medical Council. Those guidelines allow interventions to treat women where necessary, even if that treatment indirectly results in the death to the baby. If they aren't being followed, laws about abortion won't change that.
The issue then becomes about medical protocols being followed in hospitals and not about the absence of legal abortion in Ireland."

These suggest that under current law in Ireland there was nothing to stop the dying baby being removed, and that this death is a matter of misdiagnosis or malpractice.

Fletcher Christian's long post above argues that while abortion is technically allowed in certain critical situations in Ireland, political expediency has muddied the waters so much that no clear guidelines have been given to doctors, and they are therefore reluctant to risk any action that might get them in trouble. This has resulted in an effective ban on all abortions.

So which is the case? Do abortions ever occur in Ireland, for example in extreme situations such as when the mother's life is threatened? What would a UK hospital have done in this situation that an Irish one could not?
 
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on :
 
Also, to clarify: what would the the normal procedure in a UK hospital in the case of a 17 week pregnant woman who miscarries? Is an abortion (or 'evacuation' then routinely carried out, or is it normal procedure to let 'nature take its course' unless there is a threat to the life of the mother?
 
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on :
 
Answering my own questions here: most commonly in the case of a 'non-problematic' miscarriage drugs are administered to induce labour and the foetus is delivered in the usual way.
 
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on :
 
So I guess then the questions is whether the unborn child is still alive or not, and how UK or Irish hospitals would differ in their approach.

It would seem fairly clear that inducing the labour of a miscarrying mother in full knowledge that a 17 week old unborn baby is clearly not going to survive is NOT actively and deliberately taking the life of that child, and so would be allowed under Irish Law/catholic theology.

But I assume we don't know what treatment the mother was given in the three days before she died, and everything focuses on that.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
posted by Foxy:
quote:

Fletcher Christian's long post above argues that while abortion is technically allowed in certain critical situations in Ireland, political expediency has muddied the waters so much that no clear guidelines have been given to doctors, and they are therefore reluctant to risk any action that might get them in trouble. This has resulted in an effective ban on all abortions.

There was an important bit you missed out of the argument (which admitedly was far too long) about the element of historic boards of hospitals being dominated by RC religious orders and clergy, and because the legislation is so muddled, could use it to make a case to sack any doctor they feel acts against their particular moral quandries.

You also quote the Catholic Herald who say now, in hindsight, something quite different from what they would have said two weeks ago, and there's very important reason they are saying that - they don't want a referendum.
 
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on :
 
quote:

You also quote the Catholic Herald who say now, in hindsight, something quite different from what they would have said two weeks ago, and there's very important reason they are saying that - they don't want a referendum.

Hi, thanks for responding. Could you unpack the above a little? Do you mean they would have responded differently before this story broke? How so?

From what I can gather from some googling, the state of things in Ireland is that when the mother's life is in danger through ectopic pregnancy or cancer the mother's life IS given priority and procedures that will indirectly cause the death of the unborn child are allowed and do occur reasonably frequently. What isn't allowed is the direct killing of the baby through the usual abortion procedure.

Pro-life advocates claim that these are not abortions as such (because it is not a deliberate and direct killing), and that therefore abortions are ever necessary in order to protect the life and health of women. See http://liveactionnews.org/investigative/fact-check/no-more-lies/

Their article references The International Symposium on Excellence in Maternal Healthcare, which met in Dublin in September and announced the following:

quote:

* As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.
* We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
* We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.

Their head man is Dr Eamon O'Dwyer, professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynaecology at NUI Galway, who is known for his pro-life views. It is hard to tell how credible this organisation is in terms of representing genuine medical consensus.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Foxy:

Appreciate you're a decent chap but take it from me (with a good inside source) that anything approved by the Catholic Media Office, either here or in Ireland - in other words William Oddie or anyone remotely "official" in Ireland - they're frantically re-interpreting things since the needless death of this woman.

The hospital told the husband that they couldn't do anything because "Ireland is a Catholic country" - and while that may not strictly be true, there was never going to be any other interpretation.

As for your blithe assumption that labour can be induced and the (dead) baby be delivered "in the usual way" this is not a given. The body's reaction to prostaglandins given in the hope of starting/speeding up contractions can vary enormously. In the case of a woman only in the second trimester of pregnancy -17 weeks I think? - the body will do its utmost NOT to start the delivery process.

What should have happened - at the very least - was for the blood loss to be closely monitored because this would likely have indicated after 36 hours maximum that so much had been lost that the placenta was incapable of sustaining the pregnancy. And at that point the baby was not going to live so should have been removed - surgically preferably since the woman was by that stage already severely traumatised and physically weak.

As for a foetal heartbeat being heard - sometimes you hear what you want to hear. And in the case of a dying/dead foetus it is not beyond the realm of possibility that when they thought they were picking up a foetal heartbeat they were, in fact, listening to an echo of the mother's own blood flow.

This woman should not have died. And she won't be the last because there are too many "pro-life" nutters in the Ireland who prevent it happening again. And also because doctors in Irish hospitals are so scared of doing the sane, sensible, LEGAL thing and then being shopped by a pro-life nurse or admin type that they won't stick their necks out carry out procedures.
 
Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :
 
Long slightly ranty post - I've obviously been bottling my opinions up over the last few days!
quote:
Originally posted by Foxymoron:
quote:

You also quote the Catholic Herald who say now, in hindsight, something quite different from what they would have said two weeks ago, and there's very important reason they are saying that - they don't want a referendum.

Hi, thanks for responding. Could you unpack the above a little? Do you mean they would have responded differently before this story broke? How so?
I'm not Fletcher Christian, but I think that they would have said something different before this story broke.
Abortion law was already in the news here as the ECHR had already called for a clarification on current law, due to a previous case from 2010 known as the ABC case. The ECHR wasn't requiring a change to the current law or constitution - just a clarification to the actual legal situation in Ireland.
But Savita's case has had a massive reaction here - perhaps because her identity has been made public. Previous cases have had the women's identity protected, so perhaps it's easier to ignore someone who is just a letter in a legal case, not a name and a picture and a real person with a grieving family.

quote:

From what I can gather from some googling, the state of things in Ireland is that when the mother's life is in danger through ectopic pregnancy or cancer the mother's life IS given priority and procedures that will indirectly cause the death of the unborn child are allowed and do occur reasonably frequently. What isn't allowed is the direct killing of the baby through the usual abortion procedure.

I haven't seen the medical guidelines(though I would be interested to read them) but the law just says 'with due regard for the life of the mother'. It seems that some doctors interpret this as - if you're not actually dying, we won't directly intervene in a way that might cause the baby to die before its heartbeat has stopped.

quote:

Pro-life advocates claim that these are not abortions as such (because it is not a deliberate and direct killing), and that therefore abortions are ever necessary in order to protect the life and health of women. See http://liveactionnews.org/investigative/fact-check/no-more-lies/

Their article references The International Symposium on Excellence in Maternal Healthcare, which met in Dublin in September and announced the following:

quote:

* As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.
* We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
* We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.

Their head man is Dr Eamon O'Dwyer, professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynaecology at NUI Galway, who is known for his pro-life views. It is hard to tell how credible this organisation is in terms of representing genuine medical consensus.

Interesting that this guy is from NUI Galway when Savita was treated at University Hospital Galway.

In the last couple of days, the main news item about this has been the setting up of the inquiry into her death. I haven't been researching it too much (I've been busy), but they've gone from a panel including people from the hospital involved to a panel made up of people who weren't directly involved in the case. This was mostly because Praveen Hallapanavar (Savita's husband) refused to cooperate with a panel including people who'd been directly involved. He wanted an independent inquiry. (Surely that should be the default - the people involved are unlikely to say 'oh, yes, we weren't acting in her best interests, were we?')

The inquiry is supposed to give a preliminary report by Christmas.

(rant alert)
This whole case makes me so angry. The reasoning of the 'pro-life' doctors seems like they just want to be able to say 'I never directly killed an unborn child. Yes, some died as a side effect of treatment I administered to a pregnant woman. Yes, some were miscarried. But I let them miscarry in their own time, I didn't hurry it along'
I mean - what was their plan to help the baby survive? Keep her in hospital for another few weeks and see if it still had a heartbeat by the time it could survive outside the womb?
I'm not trying to make inflammatory comparisons, but it seems a bit like saying to a starving person 'No, I don't have any food to give you. God wants you to be hungry. You will just have to die of hunger, but I won't kill you myself'
(end rant)

Just to make it clear - my anger isn't aimed at the medical professions in general. Several of my friends have had babies in Irish hospitals since I've moved here, and all of them have said how well they were looked after. Apparently Ireland has one of the best records for maternal health. I am angry at the particular people involved in this particular case, and the law makers who haven't made it clear how to uphold the law in practice.

I am pro choice - but if I had to choose, I think and I hope that I would choose to stay pregnant. Obviously I don't actually know what choices I would make in every situation. But just because I would choose to stay pregnant if it happened, doesn't mean that I want somebody else to choose for me. And it doesn't mean that my life is worth less than a life that can't survive without me.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cheesymarzipan:
quote:
Originally posted by Foxymoron:
Pro-life advocates claim that these are not abortions as such (because it is not a deliberate and direct killing), and that therefore abortions are ever necessary in order to protect the life and health of women. See http://liveactionnews.org/investigative/fact-check/no-more-lies/

Their article references The International Symposium on Excellence in Maternal Healthcare, which met in Dublin in September and announced the following:

quote:
* As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.
* We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child.
* We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.

Their head man is Dr Eamon O'Dwyer, professor emeritus of obstetrics and gynaecology at NUI Galway, who is known for his pro-life views. It is hard to tell how credible this organisation is in terms of representing genuine medical consensus.
Interesting that this guy is from NUI Galway when Savita was treated at University Hospital Galway.
I'd be very interested to know if any of the medical staff attending Ms. Halappanavar were present at Professor O'Dwyer's symposium, and what affect his assurances that "direct abortion is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman" had on any who might have attended. Did they simply take him at his word? It's not an unreasonable question given the relationship between the university and the hospital.
 
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on :
 
quote:
L'organist:

As for your blithe assumption that labour can be induced and the (dead) baby be delivered "in the usual way" this is not a given. The body's reaction to prostaglandins given in the hope of starting/speeding up contractions can vary enormously. In the case of a woman only in the second trimester of pregnancy -17 weeks I think? - the body will do its utmost NOT to start the delivery process.

Ok, obviously in medicine events don't always follow the ideal path and numerous factors can complicate things. Until the inquiry is complete we won't know exactly what happened.
It seems here that the woman was judged not be at risk of her life, but if it came down to the mother's life or the baby's then doctors would have removed the baby, even if it was still alive (but doomed). Obviously the assessment of her condition was a misjudgment - perhaps due to incompetence or perhaps this was one of those cases where everything seems fine and normal procedure was followed but then it all went horribly wrong.

If abortion was permissible and common then obviously they could have whipped the baby out immediately and everything would have been ok. But I doubt whether even in UK hospitals, where abortion is perfectly legal, they opt for it so readily. From what I've read about miscarriage most are left to proceed naturally, and surgery to prevent infection is only resorted to if the process does not fully complete. All doctors have to make a judgment as to when to deploy the surgical "big guns", and play the odds in their guestimates about what action to take and when. The question is whether in this case the woman's non-invasive treatment was unduly prolonged because of the prohibitions and general nervousness surrounding abortion.

I'd suggest this is very difficult to determine, or very difficult to tell apart from general mischance or malpractice. After all it would be theoretically safer to abort in all cases of miscarriage where there is the faintest risk or infection - UK hospitals could also be accused of negligence when they haven't immediately performed an abortion where even the smallest risk is present. The same situation already exists with regard to caesarians: natural birth is preferred as a general principle and caesarians are generally only used beyond a certain point of risk or when serious problems arise.
My wife came close to death from pre-eclampsia with our first child and had an emergency c-section, which fixed the problem. But it would have been one hell of a lot easier, safer and less traumatic if they'd done it 18 hours earlier. On that basis the principle that natural birth is best undoubtedly causes the deaths of some mothers.

So it may be that the abortion 'taboo' in Ireland does cause some deaths, but it will be very hard to prove. The otherwise excellent maternal mortality rate in Ireland points to it not being statistically significant. (I know that sounds callous but that's how these things are measured).


quote:
This woman should not have died. And she won't be the last because there are too many "pro-life" nutters in the Ireland who prevent it happening again. And also because doctors in Irish hospitals are so scared of doing the sane, sensible, LEGAL thing and then being shopped by a pro-life nurse or admin type that they won't stick their necks out carry out procedures.
Then the problem isn't the law or catholic theology but a rogue set of more-catholic-than-thou zealots creating an atmosphere of paranoia and mistrust. Yet presumably if abortion was legalised in Ireland there would be certain restrictions, and THAT would become the grey area within which these ever-vigilant zealots stalked, and such deaths could still occur.
 
Posted by Yerevan (# 10383) on :
 
I'm reluctant to comment on the case because, pending an inquiry, we really don't *know* what happened.

I'm wary however of the simplistic idea that the Irish are unenthusiastic about liberalising abortion law because the Irish Republic is " a conservative Catholic country". It actually isn't. For example polls suggest that a clear majority favour legislating for same-sex marriage. I think Ireland is actually just about the only country in Europe where the debate is relatively open and even, and this produces a more 'conservative' attitude than many non-Irish liberals are comfortable with (I say this as an Irish person who was no more 'liberal' on the issue in her militantly anti-Catholic atheist days than she is now). IIRC polls consistently suggest that the overwhelming majority of Irish people favour legalised abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger (which would cover this case, assuming the accounts coming out are true), but not abortion on demand.

[ 24. November 2012, 08:43: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
posted by Foxymoron:
quote:

Then the problem isn't the law or catholic theology but a rogue set of more-catholic-than-thou zealots creating an atmosphere of paranoia and mistrust. Yet presumably if abortion was legalised in Ireland there would be certain restrictions, and THAT would become the grey area within which these ever-vigilant zealots stalked, and such deaths could still occur.

Not really, and I think you're missing the point. The fact is that the law is muddled - for complex reasons, but not least because successive governments have botched the referendums and left an openly muddled situation. But I'll go over this one last time and hopefully it will be clearer. The issue is both the present law, those who are anti-abortion and the members of the Catholic church and Orders who take a very conservative line and who sit on hospital boards. It has left a situation where the law is open to a certain amount of interpretation which means that the situation can be very unclear. Doctors, nurses and surgeons don't want to take the risk of loosing their jobs, of being taken to court and possibly even being sent to jail on a charge of murder or some configuration of manslaughter. In the Savita case, if the abortion had been carried out, the law is so muddled that a hospital board, heavily dominated by conservative members of church Orders could have easily dismissed those involved and dragged them through the courts. As it happens, it was their inaction and paralysis that has resulted in death. But this isn't the only case in Ireland since the last referendum on the topic. There have been four others - labelled cases, A, B, C and X in the press, as their identities have been protected. So the Savita case has added fuel to the anger of a litany of cases where the law as it stands has been proven to be flawed.

Now the likes of the Catholic Herald, have before this case been quite happy to stand over the law as it stands. Now they are trying to backtrack and with other conservative groups say that the Savita case is special and very rare and we really don't need a change or a referendum, and they are even backtracking on pronouncements they made a few years ago. Most people here can thankfully see through it, and they are no longer willing to listen to a church on moral issues that they feel has been seriously morally compromised. The Catholic Herald will say anything to stop a referendum because they fear that the legislation with a liberally minded government at present will result in something they really don't want, so to say there is nothing wrong with the Catholic theology and the present legislation is simply them trying to cover their backs and stop a referendum. In other words, they are laying the blame squarely at the feet of the doctors, nurses and surgeons and saying that their own campaigning in the last referendum and the muddied waters they helped to create have nothing to do with this tragic death. I'd love to be hellish about this stance, but I can't here.

Personally speaking I would like to see a situation where abortion is permitted under limited circumstances, particularly in medical cases and in situations of rape or abuse. But the only way to get clarity on the issue is with legislation and a referendum.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
There seems to be a misconception (particularly with Foxymoron, but I've seen it with others) that the Catholic Church is okay with abortions if performed to save the life of the mother. It is not. We covered this rather extensively in the ectopic pregnancy thread. The Catholic Church is okay with providing treatment to a pregnant woman if the treatment incidentally leads to the termination of the pregnancy, but is strongly against doing anything if it's the pregnancy itself that's the problem. See, for instance, my post detailing the Catholic-influenced anti-abortion law in El Salvador which prevents hospitals from terminating ectopic pregnancies unless the fetal heartbeat has stopped or there's an actual fallopian hemorrhage in progress.

The law of Ireland, of course, is not the same as the law of the Catholic Church, but I thought it important to clear up this misconception.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There seems to be a misconception (particularly with Foxymoron, but I've seen it with others) that the Catholic Church is okay with abortions if performed to save the life of the mother. It is not. We covered this rather extensively in the ectopic pregnancy thread. The Catholic Church is okay with providing treatment to a pregnant woman if the treatment incidentally leads to the termination of the pregnancy, but is strongly against doing anything if it's the pregnancy itself that's the problem. See, for instance, my post detailing the Catholic-influenced anti-abortion law in El Salvador which prevents hospitals from terminating ectopic pregnancies unless the fetal heartbeat has stopped or there's an actual fallopian hemorrhage in progress.

The law of Ireland, of course, is not the same as the law of the Catholic Church, but I thought it important to clear up this misconception.

Actually, as I understand it, you're labouring under a misconception yourself.

It is true that the direct and deliberate killing of a fetus in the womb as a means even to saving the mother's life is morally illicit in Catholic terms. But in fact, it could (depending on the details) have been quite compatible with Catholic teaching to remove a living embryo/fetus to save a mother's life so long as the child's life was not directly ended in the process - even if it could reasonably be predicted that the child would die as a result of being removed.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It is true that the direct and deliberate killing of a fetus in the womb as a means even to saving the mother's life is morally illicit in Catholic terms. But in fact, it could (depending on the details) have been quite compatible with Catholic teaching to remove a living embryo/fetus to save a mother's life so long as the child's life was not directly ended in the process - even if it could reasonably be predicted that the child would die as a result of being removed.

Your assertion seems contrary to the Catholic Church's position allowing salpingectomies (removing part or all of the fallopian tube, along with the misplaced embryo/fetus) but forbidding salpingostomies (simply removing the embryo/fetus from the fallopian tube) in cases of ectopic pregnancies. If removing a living embryo is okay, even when doing so is certain to result in its death, wouldn't the Catholic Church be okay with salpingostomies? Or any form of intact abortion, for that matter?

[ 24. November 2012, 18:13: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It is true that the direct and deliberate killing of a fetus in the womb as a means even to saving the mother's life is morally illicit in Catholic terms. But in fact, it could (depending on the details) have been quite compatible with Catholic teaching to remove a living embryo/fetus to save a mother's life so long as the child's life was not directly ended in the process - even if it could reasonably be predicted that the child would die as a result of being removed.

Your assertion seems contrary to the Catholic Church's position allowing salpingectomies (removing part or all of the fallopian tube, along with the misplaced embryo/fetus) but forbidding salpingostomies (simply removing the embryo/fetus from the fallopian tube) in cases of ectopic pregnancies.
First, how is my assertion above, which makes no mention of whether the embryo was in or out of the tube, contrary to what the Church teaches? I admit I left the details under which the embryo could licitly be removed whilst still alive deliberately vague ("depending on the details") because my knowledge of the details is, I fully admit, rusty and vague.

But I knew that it could be permissable for the living embryo to be removed whilst within the tube.

To be honest, I can't see why, according to the same principle, a living embryo/fetus could not be licitly removed in certain circumstances even when not in the fallopian tube, so long as any resulting death was otherwise unavoudable, indirect and unintentional.

In fact, I don't know that the Church definitely teaches against that. What is your evidence that it does so teach?
 
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
There seems to be a misconception (particularly with Foxymoron, but I've seen it with others) that the Catholic Church is okay with abortions if performed to save the life of the mother. It is not. We covered this rather extensively in the ectopic pregnancy thread. The Catholic Church is okay with providing treatment to a pregnant woman if the treatment incidentally leads to the termination of the pregnancy, but is strongly against doing anything if it's the pregnancy itself that's the problem. See, for instance, my post detailing the Catholic-influenced anti-abortion law in El Salvador which prevents hospitals from terminating ectopic pregnancies unless the fetal heartbeat has stopped or there's an actual fallopian hemorrhage in progress.

The law of Ireland, of course, is not the same as the law of the Catholic Church, but I thought it important to clear up this misconception.

I don't think I said "abortions" - it seems pretty clear that's the one thing the church won't approve. I think I'm right in saying that they accept there is no point in allowing a baby to kill the mother because then they'll both die anyway. They will for example induce a birth when the child has no chance to live. There are numerous other possible options, but it's not clear, to me anyway, exactly what they are. As I say there are pro-life medical experts who argue that there are always viable and pragmatic alternatives to abortion, and these will cause no more deaths than if abortion was unrestricted.

What they absolutely won't do is deliberately and actively kill an unborn child by e.g. the usual abortion methods.

The Catholic News Service article linked contains the clarification offered after Sister Margaret Mary McBride was excommunicated for her part in a decision to approve an abortion at a Phoenix Catholic Hospital in 2009. It doesn't provide any alternative treatment that could have ended the life-threatening pregnancy by the 'double-effect' approach, leaving one to conclude that the mother would have had to take her chances:

USCCB committee explains direct abortion, legitimate medical procedure
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Foxymoron:
I don't think I said "abortions" - it seems pretty clear that's the one thing the church won't approve. I think I'm right in saying that they accept there is no point in allowing a baby to kill the mother because then they'll both die anyway. They will for example induce a birth when the child has no chance to live.

I think you're trying to parse a difference where none exists. There's no medical difference between "induc[ing] a birth when the child has no chance to live" and "abortion".
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It is true that the direct and deliberate killing of a fetus in the womb as a means even to saving the mother's life is morally illicit in Catholic terms. But in fact, it could (depending on the details) have been quite compatible with Catholic teaching to remove a living embryo/fetus to save a mother's life so long as the child's life was not directly ended in the process - even if it could reasonably be predicted that the child would die as a result of being removed.

It's that "depending on the details" bit that makes Crœsos right.

Catholic ethics do not allow for the simple rule "abortion to save life is permissible". That's his point.

It is certainly true that there is an overlap between the sets of "operations permitted by Catholic ethics which are effectively abortions" and "abortions performed to save life". It is probably also true that the ingenuity and compassion of individual Catholics could, if deployed, make that overlap very large, but it is not an identity. Saving life is not the only criterion to be satisfied in Catholic ethics for abortion to be allowed.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
It is true that the direct and deliberate killing of a fetus in the womb as a means even to saving the mother's life is morally illicit in Catholic terms. But in fact, it could (depending on the details) have been quite compatible with Catholic teaching to remove a living embryo/fetus to save a mother's life so long as the child's life was not directly ended in the process - even if it could reasonably be predicted that the child would die as a result of being removed.

It's that "depending on the details" bit that makes Crœsos right.

Catholic ethics do not allow for the simple rule "abortion to save life is permissible". That's his point.

But, Eliab, my point is that Catholic ethics does stipulate just that simple rule - with the definition of abortion as the direct and deliberate killing of a child in the womb.

Performing operations on the mother - say, removing the embryo/fetus from the fallopian tube - which will certainly and predictably lead to child dying can indeed be justified if the other conditions of double-effect are met. As I understand it, in those cases Catholic ethics would indeed permit such operations, because they do not fall under the definition of abortion as the Church understands it.

I am not a moral theologian, however, so I could be wrong about that.

[ 26. November 2012, 11:29: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But, Eliab, my point is that Catholic ethics does stipulate just that simple rule - with the definition of abortion as the direct and deliberate killing of a child in the womb.

Performing operations on the mother - say, removing the embryo/fetus from the fallopian tube - which will certainly and predictably lead to child dying can indeed be justified if the other conditions of double-effect are met. As I understand it, in those cases Catholic ethics would indeed permit such operations, because they do not fall under the definition of abortion as the Church understands it.

I am not a moral theologian, however, so I could be wrong about that.

This seems at odds with the actual actions of the Catholic Church. For instance, if removing a fetus endangering its mother's life is permitted, there wouldn't have been the excommunication of the hospital director described in the article at the bottom of Foxymoron's last post. (We had a thread on this topic when it happened.) The key bit related to the current discussion:

quote:
The committee's statement quoted directive 45: "Abortion (that is, the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability or the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus) is never permitted. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo."
They even helpfully provided a couple of examples to make the distinction clearer:

quote:
In explaining the distinction, the committee offered two examples involving an unborn child not old enough to survive outside the womb.

The first involves a pregnant woman who is experiencing problems with one or more of her organs, apparently because of the added burden of pregnancy. In this case, the doctor recommends an abortion to protect the woman's health.

In the second example, a pregnant woman develops cancer in her uterus. In this case, the doctor recommends surgery to remove the cancerous uterus as the only way to prevent the cancer from spreading. Removing the uterus also will result in the death of the unborn child.

The committee said the first case is an example of a direct abortion. The surgery, the committee explained, does not directly address the health problem of the woman by repairing the organ that is malfunctioning.

"The surgery is likely to improve the functioning of the organ or organs, but only in an indirect way, i.e., by lessening the overall demands placed upon the organ or organs, since the burden posed by the pregnancy will be removed," the committee's statement said. "The abortion is the means by which a reduced strain upon the organ or organs is achieved."

In the second example, the committee explained, "an urgently needed medical procedure indirectly and unintentionally ... results in the death of an unborn child."

Which goes back to my initial take on the subject; if it's the pregnancy itself that's the problem, a woman is out of luck according to Catholic morality.
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But, Eliab, my point is that Catholic ethics does stipulate just that simple rule - with the definition of abortion as the direct and deliberate killing of a child in the womb.

Unless I completely misunderstand you, surely you mean that Catholic ethics stipulate the OPPOSITE of the rule - ie. it stipulates that abortion to save life is NOT permitted.

Your qualification is that by defining as 'not abortion' many procedures that have as an unintended but foreseen effect the termination of pregnancy, in practice Catholic teaching does permit a lot of dangerous pregnancies to be terminated. But not all of them.

And that was Crœsos' point. He was saying that people were assuming that the RCC allows abortion to save life, but that in fact this isn't the official line. It can, superficially, look as if it is, because medical interventions which incidentally terminate pregnancy are permitted where life is in danger, but abortion per se (deliberate, intended, abortion) never is.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
But, Eliab, my point is that Catholic ethics does stipulate just that simple rule - with the definition of abortion as the direct and deliberate killing of a child in the womb.

Unless I completely misunderstand you, surely you mean that Catholic ethics stipulate the OPPOSITE of the rule - ie. it stipulates that abortion to save life is NOT permitted.
Sorry, Eliab - you're quite right. I meant to say it is NOT permitted (I read an "im" where there was none in your quote).
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Your qualification is that by defining as 'not abortion' many procedures that have as an unintended but foreseen effect the termination of pregnancy, in practice Catholic teaching does permit a lot of dangerous pregnancies to be terminated. But not all of them.

Yes, I think that is right.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
And that was Crœsos' point. He was saying that people were assuming that the RCC allows abortion to save life, but that in fact this isn't the official line. It can, superficially, look as if it is, because medical interventions which incidentally terminate pregnancy are permitted where life is in danger, but abortion per se (deliberate, intended, abortion) never is.

Yup, again I think that is correct.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Crœsos, I don't think that my last but one post conflicts with the guidelines you quote at all. The sort of licit procedure I was talking about was removal of a piece of tube in which the embryo was lodged - and that seems to be covered by the directives you quote.

What the directives you quote do prohibit is the direct and deliberate termination of a pregnancy by removal of the embryo/fetus in cases where the embryo/fetus itself is not directly causing the danger - that would be abortion "as such". Such was indeed the case Sister McBride was involved in.

I can see why that deliberate abortion is illicit, and I can also see why you say that this menas that if the prgnancy itself is the problem (e.g., the hypertension case) then the woman is "out of luck" - the deliberate and direct cessation of pregnancy is not licitly open to her/the physicians in this case.

Other treatments may be available to the mother in this case, to alleviate the danger - although perhaps not always. And even if they were to be treatments that directly treated the problem itself (say the hypertension by strong drugs which dropped her blood-pressure) but which also incidentally damaged the child or caused a misscarriage, that would be licit too, according to these directives.

I did say above, however, that I was not sure that the removal of an embryo was always outlawed even when it was not lodged in a tube. I can see better now, from the directives you quote, why some of such removals would be directly abortive and therefore illicit, and why others might not be. So I thank you for that.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
The only effective treatment for pre-eclampsia or eclampsia is termination of the preganancy. When you start talking about a pregnant woman with high blood pressure, that's what you are talking about. If the pregnancy isn't terminated, the woman will likely die.

And, as far as I can see, that's okay with the Roman Catholic Church.

To me, they're playing games when they say that you can terminate the pregnancy in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, because the embryo is being removed "incidentally," and the termination is not the intended result of the surgery, but something that just sort of happens as an unintended byproduct of the procedure, but you can't in the case of eclampsia, because the intent of the surgery is terminating the pregnancy.

That's stupid, as far as I'm concerned. In both cases, the intent is to save the mother's life; in both cases, the means of saving the mother's life is terminating the pregnancy, which is what is putting her life at risk. Separating one from the other is just playing word-games: word-games that result in women dying.

May God have mercy.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Crœsos, I don't think that my last but one post conflicts with the guidelines you quote at all. The sort of licit procedure I was talking about was removal of a piece of tube in which the embryo was lodged - and that seems to be covered by the directives you quote.

<snip>

I did say above, however, that I was not sure that the removal of an embryo was always outlawed even when it was not lodged in a tube. I can see better now, from the directives you quote, why some of such removals would be directly abortive and therefore illicit, and why others might not be. So I thank you for that.

It seems like a particularly dangerous way to maintain what is essentially a pretense or façade. Waiting for the fallopian tube to rupture just so you can claim double effect (as is the practice in El Salvador) seems like a lot of risk to place on women just to extract the Church's pound of flesh (or however much the section sliced out of the woman happens to weigh).
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Croesus, I think you misunderstand me. I don't see why, under the directives you have quoted, a removal cannot take place before any rupture.

Am I missing something? It's perfectly possible.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Croesus, I think you misunderstand me. I don't see why, under the directives you have quoted, a removal cannot take place before any rupture.

Am I missing something? It's perfectly possible.

We all know it's possible. It happens all the time in civilized nations. The question is whether the Catholic Church considers it morally permissible.

The Salvadoran government (and their Catholic advisors) have concluded that removing an embryo/fetus from the tube is a direct abortion, and that removing a section of an otherwise healthy tube containing an embryo/fetus is also a direct abortion. I believe their reasoning is that prior to the rupture the tube is healthy and there's no reason to remove it other than to remove the embryo/fetus, so the removal serves no purpose other than to terminate a pregnancy.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The only effective treatment for pre-eclampsia or eclampsia is termination of the preganancy. When you start talking about a pregnant woman with high blood pressure, that's what you are talking about. If the pregnancy isn't terminated, the woman will likely die.

And, as far as I can see, that's okay with the Roman Catholic Church.

That's "okay" with Catholics? That's a pretty vile way to put it, when Catholics - no less than non-Catholics - can see and feel perfectly well the awfulness of such a situation. Do you think we don't?

For Catholics everything possible must be done for the mother that the circumstances allow except the deliberate and direct killing of the child in such a situation. The reason why the direct and deliberate killing of the child is not allowed is the same reason that (and I don't hear this said too often) the deliberate and direct killing of the mother would not be allowed, even if it saved the child's life: it would be a direct breach of the 5th Commandment. "We may not kill, but needs must strive officiously to keep alive" would just about sum it up.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
To me, they're playing games when they say that you can terminate the pregnancy in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, because the embryo is being removed "incidentally," and the termination is not the intended result of the surgery, but something that just sort of happens as an unintended byproduct of the procedure, but you can't in the case of eclampsia, because the intent of the surgery is terminating the pregnancy.

This is serious and difficult and we take it at its full gravity - to be anything less than serious and rational and conscience-led on this would be truly criminal. We are deeply serious and sincere, I assure you. And yet you imply that we treat it as a game.

To me, it is not morally trivial that in the one case you perform an act that has as an entirely unintended, undesired and indirect effect of the death of the child, and in the other you deliberately kill the child because the direct aim is to terminate the pregnancy, not in directly treat the condition but in treating the termination as a deliberate means to an end.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
That's stupid, as far as I'm concerned. In both cases, the intent is to save the mother's life; in both cases, the means of saving the mother's life is terminating the pregnancy, which is what is putting her life at risk. Separating one from the other is just playing word-games: word-games that result in women dying.

In both cases the desired end is the saving of the mother's life. But in one case one uses the deliberate and direct cutting off of the child's life as a means to that end, and in the other one doesn't. Deliberately ending a pregnancy as a direct means of saving a mother's life is to trade its life off to save here. The fact that the embryo will likely die anyway doesn not change that fcat. It's treating the embryo/fetus's life as a mere means to the end of the mother's. To take a life-saving measure for the mother which has as an indirect (not aimed at not directly concommitant) consequence the death of the child is to treat both as ends in themsleves. That is the moral distinction for Catholics.

You may not be convinced of the rightness of our moral reasoning and intuitions here - and I for one would not be condemnatory of that. But whatever else it is that Catholics are trying to achieve, Josephine, please believe me that it is not deliberately letting women die so as not to infringe the rules of our "word-game". It is a serious attempt to put proper weight on the life of both mother and child and to discern through reason the will of God, given our understanding of His laws as received through Tradition. That you would be prepared to suggest that we are choosing to sacrifice women's lives to our arbitrary word-games indicates to me an alarming eagerness to believe evil of Catholic teaching. Seriously - that is a very grave matter.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
May God have mercy.

Amen. May He indeed. You could show some mercy too by not impugning our good will in this serious matter.

[ 26. November 2012, 20:23: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Croesus, I think you misunderstand me. I don't see why, under the directives you have quoted, a removal cannot take place before any rupture.

Am I missing something? It's perfectly possible.

We all know it's possible. It happens all the time in civilized nations.
Actually, I meant that my missing something was perfectly possible.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
To me, they're playing games when they say that you can terminate the pregnancy in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, because the embryo is being removed "incidentally," and the termination is not the intended result of the surgery, but something that just sort of happens as an unintended byproduct of the procedure, but you can't in the case of eclampsia, because the intent of the surgery is terminating the pregnancy.

This is serious and difficult and we take it at its full gravity - to be anything less than serious and rational and conscience-led on this would be truly criminal. We are deeply serious and sincere, I assure you. And yet you imply that we treat it as a game.

To me, it is not morally trivial that in the one case you perform an act that has as an entirely unintended, undesired and indirect effect of the death of the child, and in the other you deliberately kill the child because the direct aim is to terminate the pregnancy, not in directly treat the condition but in treating the termination as a deliberate means to an end.

I'm pretty sure this is what Josephine means by "playing games": indulging in the pretense that having a section of fallopian tube cut out is just something women do all the time for no particular reason of medical necessity. If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy but no other medical problem is there any reason to cut out part of the tube other than to end that pregnancy?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
Actually I can think of a reason a woman might want a section of perfectly healthy fallopian tube cut out, but since tubal ligation is another Catholic no-no, I don't think it's particularly relevant to the current conversation.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
The only effective treatment for pre-eclampsia or eclampsia is termination of the preganancy. When you start talking about a pregnant woman with high blood pressure, that's what you are talking about. If the pregnancy isn't terminated, the woman will likely die.

And, as far as I can see, that's okay with the Roman Catholic Church.

That's "okay" with Catholics? That's a pretty vile way to put it, when Catholics - no less than non-Catholics - can see and feel perfectly well the awfulness of such a situation. Do you think we don't?


Forgive me, Chesterbelloc, but I have to confess that I have come to think that many Catholics (and many others who follow Roman Catholic teaching in this regard) don't. It must be true that some do. But when I read pro-life articles and discussions, I don't see anything that looks like pain and grief, I don't hear anything that sounds like sorrow or fear, I don't feel any warmth of empathy or compassion. Instead, I hear people saying that it is never necessary to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother, that women claim that their life or health is in danger to justify an abortion that is done strictly for her convenience, because she is selfish, because she wants consequence-free sex, and we can't have that. I hear people say that maternal death just doesn't happen any more, now that we've got hospitals and antibiotics and all of that.

It's possible that I have missed the overwhelming and compassionate message of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue, having heard only from some lunatic fringe that doesn't correctly portray the RC position. If that's the case, I would be grateful if you'd send me to some sources where my impression could be corrected. Because, honestly, Chesterbelloc, I have always had a great deal of respect and affection for the RCC, but they are losing it.

quote:
For Catholics everything possible must be done for the mother that the circumstances allow except the deliberate and direct killing of the child in such a situation.


This is the problem. To preserve your own purity on the issue, you make distinctions that don't make a difference. Removing a living embryo with the "diseased" fallopian tube, at least some RC theologians are willing to call an "indirect" killing of a child. Terminating a pregnancy in the case of eclampsia is a "direct" killing of the child. But that, as I said before, is a word-game. The intent, in both cases, is to save the mother's life by terminating the pregnancy. Both terminations are deliberate. Both are intentional. Both use the same means to achieve the same ends. The only reason I can see to pretend otherwise is to preserve a moral fantasy.

And it is a moral fantasy that has real consequences. That makes the fantasy evil.

I think you want to have a world where you never have to choose between two evils, where there is always a good and right thing to choose. Unfortunately, that world doesn't exist. Since the Fall, we have been stuck in a world where sometimes there is no good and right thing to choose. Sometimes all of the choices available are evil. And when that happens, then with the fear of God, you can only choose the least evil that you can.

And that is a struggle. It's painful. It's horrible. But it's better to face it head-on than to pretend that the situation is other than what it is.

Whatever moral culpability you would have in terminating the ectopic pregnancy, you have the same culpability in terminating the pregnancy in the case of eclampsia. And whatever moral culpability you would have in not terminating the ectopic pregnancy and allowing the woman to die, you have the same culpability in not terminating the pregnancy in the case of eclampsia. In the one case, it is a sin of commission. In the other, it is a sin of omission. But in neither case are you innocent. In either case, if you were in charge of the medical decision, you would be choosing death for someone. The only honest thing to do is to face that, and accept it, and to do the best thing you can figure out to do in an evil circumstance, and then throw yourself on the mercy of God.

quote:
We are deeply serious and sincere, I assure you. And yet you imply that we treat it as a game.


I do indeed. I would like to think otherwise, believe me. I have had as a podvig, for many years, to avoid, not only bearing false witness against others, but to think well of them, and to take the most charitable possible interpretation of their words and actions. I started out believing that people in the pro-life movement generally chose their position entirely because of the value they placed on human life. I believed that for a very long time. I have only very reluctantly concluded otherwise. I have, on this board, asked people to persuade me that I am wrong. I would like to be wrong on this.

quote:
To me, it is not morally trivial that in the one case you perform an act that has as an entirely unintended, undesired and indirect effect of the death of the child, and in the other you deliberately kill the child because the direct aim is to terminate the pregnancy, not in directly treat the condition but in treating the termination as a deliberate means to an end.

Explain that, please, in words of no more than two syllables. Because apparently I'm too stupid to see the distinction. How is the death of an embryo on its removal from a fallopian tube "unintended, undesired and indirect," while the death of an embryo on its removal from the uterus intended, desired, and direct? How can an abortion be a licit treatment for ectopic pregnancy, but not for eclampsia? In both cases, the goal is NOT to terminate the pregancy, but to save the mother's life. It happens that, in both cases, the only means available to save the mother's life is to terminate the pregnancy.

I suppose some in the RCC are consistent -- in the countries where you can't terminate an ectopic pregnancy until the embryo has died, they are not playing games. That is at least consistent. They are willing, in all cases rather than in some cases, to kill women (by omission) in order not to kill embryos (by commission).

And if a RC woman wants to make that choice for herself, she has my admiration and my prayers. But for the RC to make that choice for other people is wrong.

quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
That's stupid, as far as I'm concerned. In both cases, the intent is to save the mother's life; in both cases, the means of saving the mother's life is terminating the pregnancy, which is what is putting her life at risk. Separating one from the other is just playing word-games: word-games that result in women dying.

In both cases the desired end is the saving of the mother's life. But in one case one uses the deliberate and direct cutting off of the child's life as a means to that end, and in the other one doesn't. [/quote][/qb]
Again, talk to me like I'm a fifth grader. How is the removal of an embryo from a fallopian tube less deliberate than the removal of an embryo from a uterus? How is one less direct than the other? Because I'm not seeing a difference.

quote:
You may not be convinced of the rightness of our moral reasoning and intuitions here - and I for one would not be condemnatory of that. But whatever else it is that Catholics are trying to achieve, Josephine, please believe me that it is not deliberately letting women die so as not to infringe the rules of our "word-game". It is a serious attempt to put proper weight on the life of both mother and child and to discern through reason the will of God, given our understanding of His laws as received through Tradition. That you would be prepared to suggest that we are choosing to sacrifice women's lives to our arbitrary word-games indicates to me an alarming eagerness to believe evil of Catholic teaching. Seriously - that is a very grave matter.

I am not eager to believe evil of RC teaching. I have been trying NOT to believe evil of the Church regarding this teaching for quite some time. But I have finally been pushed over the edge. I can no longer choose to believe contrary to the evidence that I see. If you want me to believe otherwise, please, please provide the evidence. I would like to know that I have wronged you, and your church, so that I can ask your forgiveness, and then take myself to Confession to ask God's forgiveness.


quote:
[QUOTE]May God have mercy.[QUOTE]Amen. May He indeed. You could show some mercy too by not impugning our good will in this serious matter.
Forgive me as far as you are able, Chesterbelloc, because I cannot find any way at this time to believe in the good will of your Church in this matter. I truly wish that I could.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Ok, I'm not doing too good a job here I see, and it's not for want of trying.

Part of it seems to be due to competing moral intuitions, some of it is down to a visceral antipathy to Catholic teaching (which I don't say is necessarily malicious, but might be to do with a lack of willingness to assume good will on both sides) and a lot is down my inability to make myself coherent or convincing without feeling exhausted by the effort. Further efforts in my current mood are likely to make the Catholic position less coherent or convincing rather than more.

In short, I'm done here for now.

[x-p'd with Josephine, whom I thank for her response.]

[ 26. November 2012, 21:09: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Further efforts in my current mood are likely to make the Catholic position less coherent or convincing rather than more.

In short, I'm done here for now.

[x-p'd with Josephine, whom I thank for her response.]

I understand, and you are welcome, and I was sincere in what I said -- I would like to be shown wrong, so when you feel able, if you would return with additional sources or arguments or information that would correct my misconceptions, I would be grateful.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
Comments from Ta-Nehisi Coates, if you're interested. His conclusion:

quote:
I would submit that if you believe abortion to be murder, you don't decide at all [when a woman is close enough to dying to give her an abortion]. ... Either abortion is murder, or it isn't. If you believe the former then Halappanavar's doctors were quite correct -- they refused to murder a baby to save its mother.

Walsh was lying in his refusal to admit that women actually do die during the work of pregnancy. But his position -- "without exceptions" -- strikes me as the honest one. The problem here isn't packaging. There is no way to honestly modify its import. Either you believe that women who have sex should run the risk of being remanded to potentially lethal labor, or you don't. No exceptions.


 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Josephine:
quote:
Again, talk to me like I'm a fifth grader. How is the removal of an embryo from a fallopian tube less deliberate than the removal of an embryo from a uterus? How is one less direct than the other? Because I'm not seeing a difference.
Perhaps we are approaching this from the wrong angle. If you start from the premise that all abortion is wrong, but you are a compassionate person who wants to avoid inflicting unnecessary suffering on others, you might end up in a similar position to the RCC. In some ways it's similar to their position on marriage; they don't allow divorce at all, but if you can comply with something on this handy list of grounds for annulment you can pretend you never got married in the first place. So they are trying to bend the rules against abortion as far as possible without actually breaking them (because of the blanket ban on abortion). If your life-threatening pregnancy or your abusive marriage doesn't fit one of the conditions in the get-out clause, it's tough on you. But they are trying, within the constraints of their absolutist worldview.

Personally, I think it would be better to acknowledge that we live in an imperfect world. To rejoice that medical science has advanced to the point where we can save the mother in situations like this, and pray that one day we will be able to save her baby as well.

But I am not a Catholic.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Jane, I must thank you for this. I believe it is very close to explaining the reasoning and principles of the Catholic position. You understand that we feel we are working from absolute moral prohibitions - revealed, not of our own making - and are trying our best to apply them with both faithfulness and compassion. Seriously - that is precisely how we see things.

Since I'm still not sure I can say more without making it seem less rather than more convincing, I'll leave off here, with repeated thanks to you and to Josephine. Your good will is much appreciated.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Jane, I must thank you for this. I believe it is very close to explaining the reasoning and principles of the Catholic position. You understand that we feel we are working from absolute moral prohibitions - revealed, not of our own making - and are trying our best to apply them with both faithfulness and compassion.

The big problem is that the legal restrictions and criminal penalties that are frequently enacted from such a position are very much "of [y]our own making". To bring this back to the OP, why should a Hindu (or any other non-Catholic) be required, under penalty of law, to adhere to Catholic teaching?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Because that's the way democracy works?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Because that's the way democracy works?

Some form of absolutist democracy, perhaps. The Athenian city-state is the closest example I can think of. Liberal democracies usually reserve a certain core of personal liberty. (Hence the name.)
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Ireland is an "absolutist" democracy? I've never heard that criticism before.

At some point, you may just have to face up to the fact that some people fundamentally disagree with your ordering of moral goods.

You say abortion is a liberty issue? Some may agree with you and decide that any legislation against it violates the liberty a woman should have over the fate of her own body.

Some people might agree that it's a liberty issue and think that the most fundamental liberty is the right to exist and will want to defend the unborn on that basis.

Others may think that liberty is a basic good, but that certain exercises of liberty can result in choosing freely to do things that are wrong.

Some may think that liberty is important, but not important enough to justify the freedom of religious groups to discriminate on the grounds of conscience against gay couples and in favour of married (straight) couples for adoption.

There are other permutations. By all means, try to change people's minds. Everyone does. But these moral differences of conviction exist.

What Ireland decides is the law in Ireland is up to them. It's not up to me, or the Catholic Church, or you, or anyone else - no matter how wrong we may think they are in their choice. Maybe they will change the law soon. I don't know. I don't have to agree with them if they do, any more than you agree with the law as it stands.

Go ahead and preach your doctrine of liberal democracy to the Irish. But don't tell me that the Irish law is the result of the Church forcing her morality on an unwilling Irish people, because there is nothing stopping the Irish people telling the Church to feck off if they disagree with her. It's just that it they have to do it democratically. What alternaive would you suggest - a coup d'etat led by you?
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Ireland is an "absolutist" democracy? I've never heard that criticism before.

Not a criticism of the Irish republic, just your assertion that anything done by a democracy is automatically legitimate. Most democracies as constituted in the modern world (which includes Ireland) involve some theory of limited government.

quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You say abortion is a liberty issue? Some may agree with you and decide that any legislation against it violates the liberty a woman should have over the fate of her own body.

Some people might agree that it's a liberty issue and think that the most fundamental liberty is the right to exist and will want to defend the unborn on that basis.

Others may think that liberty is a basic good, but that certain exercises of liberty can result in choosing freely to do things that are wrong.

Some may think that liberty is important, but not important enough to justify the freedom of religious groups to discriminate on the grounds of conscience against gay couples and in favour of married (straight) couples for adoption.

The basic problem with the above is that it involves rational analysis, something revealed absolute moral truths are impervious to. There may indeed be pragmatic grounds for any or all of the above arguments, but pragmatism is completely irrelevant to revealed truth.

Since the political theory implications of this are only tangentially related to the current topic and are well worth discussing in their own right, I've started a Purgatory thread on the subject of the limits of democracy in enforcing revelation.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Ireland is an "absolutist" democracy? I've never heard that criticism before.

Not a criticism of the Irish republic, just your assertion that anything done by a democracy is automatically legitimate.
[Roll Eyes] It shouldn't even need to be said that I made no such assertion. People can read here, you know.

But if your criticism was not aimed at the Irish govenment's restrictions on abortion (which is what we were actually refering to), can I take it that you accept that Ireland has the right to legislate this way for itself?

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Most democracies as constituted in the modern world (which includes Ireland) involve some theory of limited government.

But perhaps Ireland's current one doesn't accord with your theory of limited govenment. Why should it?
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
You say abortion is a liberty issue? Some may agree with you and decide that any legislation against it violates the liberty a woman should have over the fate of her own body.

Some people might agree that it's a liberty issue and think that the most fundamental liberty is the right to exist and will want to defend the unborn on that basis.

Others may think that liberty is a basic good, but that certain exercises of liberty can result in choosing freely to do things that are wrong.

Some may think that liberty is important, but not important enough to justify the freedom of religious groups to discriminate on the grounds of conscience against gay couples and in favour of married (straight) couples for adoption.

There may indeed be pragmatic grounds for any or all of the above arguments, but pragmatism is completely irrelevant to revealed truth.
I'm not even sure what that means. But since you admit that there could be pragmatic (rather "blindly irrational", presumably) grounds for making such decisions, what's your point? It seems to be that "proper respect for liberty accords with my understanding of it". Mine was that since people disagree about that, why should yours prevail over others'?
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Jane, I must thank you for this. I believe it is very close to explaining the reasoning and principles of the Catholic position. You understand that we feel we are working from absolute moral prohibitions - revealed, not of our own making - and are trying our best to apply them with both faithfulness and compassion.

The big problem is that the legal restrictions and criminal penalties that are frequently enacted from such a position are very much "of [y]our own making". To bring this back to the OP, why should a Hindu (or any other non-Catholic) be required, under penalty of law, to adhere to Catholic teaching?
Residents of the Irish Republic are obliged to adhere to that country's laws, not Catholic teaching. I believe the same applies where you live ie: you are obliged to follow the laws of the jurisdiction in which you reside.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
posted by Matt:
quote:

Residents of the Irish Republic are obliged to adhere to that country's laws, not Catholic teaching

While this is true, it must be remembered that the Catholic church in Ireland effectively ran everything, so most people (right into the 1990's) weren't too willing to bite the hand that fed them. I'm not saying this was a good situation - it plainly wasn't in light of recent events and revelations - but it was how it was.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Granted as an historic point, but given that the Irish Republic has for a few years now well-and-truly fallen out of love with the Catholic Church (to the mutual advantage of both I think), this is no longer a current issue IMO: what we are talking about now is the law of a sovereign democratic country.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
At some point, you may just have to face up to the fact that some people fundamentally disagree with your ordering of moral goods.

That is why I believe in liberal democracy with a strong bias towards protection for the weak and individual freedom.

You, however, seem to be implying that might makes right even where it leads to, as here, almost literal human sacrifice.

quote:
You say abortion is a liberty issue? Some may agree with you and decide that any legislation against it violates the liberty a woman should have over the fate of her own body.
I say abortion is a medical issue. I happen to find limb amputations squicky - but I certainly wouldn't try to ban them.

For a freedom issue, I say the right to hold religious services is a freedom issue. I say that the right to perform secular ceremonies like marriage is a freedom issue. I say the right to run schools is a freedom issue and one that needs to be weighed against the harmful indoctrination that will be done.

And I say that if you are not in favour of liberty and of good medical care, it is only by the generosity of others that it is extended to you.

quote:
Some may think that liberty is important, but not important enough to justify the freedom of religious groups to discriminate on the grounds of conscience against gay couples and in favour of married (straight) couples for adoption.
And others consider this claim disingenuous. Catholic Care (like the other adoption agencies) is significantly publically funded - an amount in excess of £20,000 per successful placement (which, admittedly, doesn't cover the full cost). If the Catholic Adoption Agencies wish to continue to get paid by the local authorities then they can play by the rules Local Authorities work under. Subcontractors do not get to ignore the rules the main body works under in an honest system.

If the Catholic Adoption Agencies wish to continue to be adoption agencies and not receive the lions' share of their funding from public bodies then they can turn into private adoption agencies, turn down the £20,000 per child, and continue to be adoption agencies - this time fully financed by charity rather than majority-financed by the state.

As far as I know, no "Catholic Adoption Agency" in Britain has ever seriously considered becoming other than a public adoption agency.

So cry me a river. Your adoption agencies want to take state money and not play by the rules that money is attached to. They aren't allowed to take money and not fulfil the obligations that come with it, and the donations are nothing like enough to make up the shortfall that would produce.

Or do you genuinely think that the state should not be able to say what the state spends the state's money on? And that this is unjust?

quote:
What Ireland decides is the law in Ireland is up to them. It's not up to me, or the Catholic Church, or you, or anyone else - no matter how wrong we may think they are in their choice.
Out of curiosity would you say the same about the rules the Catholic Church played under in the USSR or Maoist China? If not, why not?
 
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
Because that's the way democracy works?

Some form of absolutist democracy, perhaps. The Athenian city-state is the closest example I can think of. Liberal democracies usually reserve a certain core of personal liberty. (Hence the name.)
Although I completely agree with you on the general point, and almost always disagree with Chesterbelloc when he runs this line, I think that the Catholic position on abortion may genuinely be an exception to the rule.

The Catholic position is that an unborn child is a person, morally equivalent to, and deserving of the same protections as, any other person. That means, doesn't it, that they are contending that the unborn are part of the democratic community, whose rights should be counted, and their opponents are taking the contrary position that the unborn do not have that status.

That seems to me to be the sort of question that has to be answered collectively. It can't be a matter of individual conscience and freedom who gets to be part of the game - that question has to have a definitive answer. It sets the starting point for all subsequent consideration of rights and freedoms.

In a country like (for example) the USA, where it is clear that the unborn are not constitutional persons, then it would seem to follow that the usual principles of personal freedom apply. America has decided that foetuses aren't people, so America would be wrong to impose an absolute restriction on the rights of pregnant women to abortion. Roe v. Wade was correctly decided for that reason. Ireland, though, has a different constitution. Ireland appears to have decided that foetuses are people - therefore it would only be wrong under liberal democratic principles if Ireland failed to treat them consistently with that.

It seems to me that if the Irish are wrong to give constitutional rights to foetuses (or the Americans wrong not to), they are wrong at a more fundamental level than the principles of liberal democracy. They are wrong about where the lines are drawn for inclusion or exclusion.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
The Catholic position is that an unborn child is a person, morally equivalent to, and deserving of the same protections as, any other person. That means, doesn't it, that they are contending that the unborn are part of the democratic community, whose rights should be counted, and their opponents are taking the contrary position that the unborn do not have that status.

The Roman Catholic position is that in theory an unborn is a person - although to answer ChesterBelloc's latest in Purg, if I was unborn I wouldn't feel a damn thing either way.

But the Roman Catholic practical position is in almost all cases contrary to this approach. It opposes methods intended to prevent the unborn getting into trouble by opposing contraception. It opposes safeguards for the unborn, ranking the lives of the unborn as as unimportant as what you do with bits of rubber.

And most damningly of all, if the Roman Catholic Church is to be believed about the status of the unborn, the world's biggest killer is spontaneous abortion. If the Roman Catholic Church genuinely believed that then it would be pouring more effort into researching ways to prevent spontaneous early term abortions than it would to fight cancer. It is, after all, a bigger killer.

Find me those charities. Find me the Roman Catholics putting their money where their mouths are and supporting such research rather than merely trying to say that womens' bodies are worth less than the unborn who are, themselves, worth less than little pieces of rubber and that they can't be bothered to drop a single penny to research to save.

Once I see action consistent with the Roman Catholic Church treating the unborn as people rather than political banners I'll take it seriously.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And most damningly of all, if the Roman Catholic Church is to be believed about the status of the unborn, the world's biggest killer is spontaneous abortion. If the Roman Catholic Church genuinely believed that then it would be pouring more effort into researching ways to prevent spontaneous early term abortions than it would to fight cancer. It is, after all, a bigger killer.

Maybe they think it's okay when it's God doing the killing? Of course, that reasoning could apply equally to cancer . . .

On a related note, the Irish bishops have issued a statement on Ms. Halappanavar's death which is equal parts muddle and crocodile tears.

Blogger and OB/GYN Dr. Jen Gunter details why this statement is more likely to confuse than clarify.

quote:
The statement from the Irish Catholic Bishops is medically nonsensical, contradictory, and immoral and as it represents a group of men who have never practiced medicine opining on an aspect of medical care that they clearly can’t understand.

The only thing this statement clarifies is how Irish physicians could easily be confused by an Irish abortion law steeped in religion, and thus reinforces the claim that Catholicism contributed to Dr. Halappanavar’s death.

Read the rest for the specifics.

[ 28. November 2012, 15:12: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
to answer ChesterBelloc's latest in Purg, if I was unborn I wouldn't feel a damn thing either way.

Having an actual interest (i.e., good grounds for valuing - having a stake) in whether you live or die is not dependent on yet being capable of realisng the interets you have in it.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
And most damningly of all, if the Roman Catholic Church is to be believed about the status of the unborn, the world's biggest killer is spontaneous abortion. If the Roman Catholic Church genuinely believed that then it would be pouring more effort into researching ways to prevent spontaneous early term abortions than it would to fight cancer. It is, after all, a bigger killer.

Maybe they think it's okay when it's God doing the killing? Of course, that reasoning could apply equally to cancer . . .
I'm expecting this to be another cause of ethical dissonance, but at least one relevant issue here is the moral distinction between killing and letting die. Not everyone buys that there is one, and no-one believes there is in all cases, but in some cases relevant to this issue, I think there is.

If you think that there is an absolute moral prohibition on the direct and deliberate killing of the innocent, you needn't think that there is an equivalent moral obligation to do all that one can to prevent the natural (by which I mean not caused directly by human agency) death of the innocent in all cases.

For example, it is wrong to care so little for cancer victims that one does not support in any way the research necessary to prevent that outcome when one easily could. But it is worse - very much worse - to shoot dead someone suffering from cancer because they are a burden to you in some way. It would also be worse to see someone approach a cancer sufferer with a gun and not try to prevent him from shooting them.

So supposing the Church is wrong not to support research into preventing early spontaneous abortion, insofar as that is the Church's responsibility (which we can argue about). It would be "wronger", given her teachings, for the Church not to speak out against people killing embryos/fetuses. Not only because deliberate murder is a more horrible sin that the neglect of further medical research into preventing future natural deaths - but also because it would be seriously wrong for the Church to give the impression, by keeping silence, that such deliberate killing is not deeply wrong. The Church has a duty to speak out when deeply sinful things occur - a duty towards both the victim and the pepetrator.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm expecting this to be another cause of ethical dissonance, but at least one relevant issue here is the moral distinction between killing and letting die. Not everyone buys that there is one, and no-one believes there is in all cases, but in some cases relevant to this issue, I think there is.

If you think that there is an absolute moral prohibition on the direct and deliberate killing of the innocent, you needn't think that there is an equivalent moral obligation to do all that one can to prevent the natural (by which I mean not caused directly by human agency) death of the innocent in all cases.

I think this goes a very long way to explaining the underlying thinking involved in Ms. Halappanavar's medical treament, or lack thereof. Taking any active steps to help her complete her miscarriage would be "the direct and deliberate killing of the innocent", which is considered "gravely immoral" (to borrow a phrase from the bishops' statement). Standing by and doing nothing as Ms. Halappanavar is slowly killed by an infection ("not caused directly by human agency") may also be wrong, but it's nowhere near as wrong as not waiting for the fetus to die on its own before doing anything to save the mother. That kind of death by neglect allows moralizers to keep their hands clean, at least in their own estimation.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Standing by and doing nothing as Ms. Halappanavar is slowly killed by an infection ("not caused directly by human agency") may also be wrong, but it's nowhere near as wrong as not waiting for the fetus to die on its own before doing anything to save the mother.

That's rather a lot of assumptions you're packing there. For example, that the hospital was giving no treatment to the mother whatsoever, and that the fetus although still alive was the cause of the infection. You seem to know more about what actually happened in this case than any of the reports I've read. Perhaps you should offer to assist the enquiry with its investigation.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Standing by and doing nothing as Ms. Halappanavar is slowly killed by an infection ("not caused directly by human agency") may also be wrong, but it's nowhere near as wrong as not waiting for the fetus to die on its own before doing anything to save the mother.

That's rather a lot of assumptions you're packing there. For example, that the hospital was giving no treatment to the mother whatsoever, and that the fetus although still alive was the cause of the infection.
Not that many assumptions at all. For instance, I've "assumed" that whatever treatment Ms. Halappanavar may have received, it did not include helping her complete her miscarriage. Of course, since this seems to be a universally agreed upon fact in all the media accounts I've read this seems a fairly safe assumption to make. Likewise, the fact that Ms. Halappanavar was dilated and leaking amniotic fluid seems to be uncontested in any media account I've come across. This indicates a high probability of uterine infection (and is one of the reasons miscarriages were so terrifying in the age before antibiotics). "At any gestational age, a patient with evidence of an intrauterine infection . . . is best cared for by an expeditious delivery" according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which I guess means that I'm also assuming human reproduction works the same in Ireland as in the U.S.

All of which is beside the main point. If you start from your position that doing nothing is the morally superior position, outcomes like this are an easily foreseeable result.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you start from your position that doing nothing is the morally superior position, outcomes like this are an easily foreseeable result.

Except that I don't start from that position. It's quite a stretch from what I've said to that, in fact. I'm getting a bit tired of this misrepresentation, to be honest.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
I'm expecting this to be another cause of ethical dissonance, but at least one relevant issue here is the moral distinction between killing and letting die. Not everyone buys that there is one, and no-one believes there is in all cases, but in some cases relevant to this issue, I think there is.

In short where the death would have happened anyway the Roman Catholic Church washes their hands of it and says that it should simply be allowed to happen. The Pontius Pilate aproach to ethics.

quote:
If you think that there is an absolute moral prohibition on the direct and deliberate killing of the innocent, you needn't think that there is an equivalent moral obligation to do all that one can to prevent the natural (by which I mean not caused directly by human agency) death of the innocent in all cases.
If you think there is a value in the lives of innocents then you ought to be trying to save them even more strongly than you try and save non-innocent adults.

Personally I consider brainless bundles of cells with human DNA to have about the moral value of hair follacles.

quote:
So supposing the Church is wrong not to support research into preventing early spontaneous abortion, insofar as that is the Church's responsibility (which we can argue about). It would be "wronger", given her teachings, for the Church not to speak out against people killing embryos/fetuses.
Mysteriously she does the one that allows her to sneer at the morality of others and not the one that would actually mean doing something to prevent this. She also does her best to oppose any gun control measures, so to speak, other than sticking up signs saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Also there are orders of magnitude more foetuses spontaneously aborted than given induced abortions. If it's a choice between trying to stop one gunman and putting the same effort into trying to stop an entire town drowning by flood, the Church chooses to wash its hands in the flood and do nothing about it.

quote:
Not only because deliberate murder is a more horrible sin that the neglect of further medical research into preventing future natural deaths - but also because it would be seriously wrong for the Church to give the impression, by keeping silence, that such deliberate killing is not deeply wrong.
Who is saying that the Roman Catholic Church should keep silent about abortion if it actually takes effective measures to stop abortion.

As it is, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't seem to oppose abortion in any credible way. It simply seems to be in favour of speaking out. Speaking out is the only goal it has for the lives of the innocents it supposedly gives a damn about.

If the Roman Catholic Church really cared about abortion and thought it was actually killing the unborn then it would be in favour of contraception as contraception is the best known preventer of abortion. If the Roman Catholic Church really cared about the deaths of the unborn it would be calling for massive medical research to prevent the unborn dying in numbers that make AIDS and Smallpox look trivial.

Instead the Roman Catholic Church opposes the best known way of preventing abortions, and doesn't do a damn thing about the routine deaths of the unborn. From this I conclude that it doesn't actually give a damn about the unborn (or it would call for massive medical research on spontaneous abortions) and its reason for opposing abortion is to have something to call a sin that the supposedly celibate priesthood won't need.

Its actions are not consistent with any other reading. All it does is the bare minimum to give its members the glow of self-righteousness while not actually caring about the problem.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
I'm sorry, Justinian - I'm not responding to that.
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
Bravo, Justinian. A brilliant summary.

And before the pro-life, pro-catholic banshees start to wail, consider another catholic cop-out: the RC attitude towards the use of condoms by HIV positive men, particularly in Africa. All the RC church has done is spread mis-information and bang on (again) about contraception being a sin that cries to heaven for vengeance.

The RC attitude to anything even remotely related to sex - be it contraception, conception, abortion, miscarriage, etc - is to bang on about sin and the value of "unborn life" while doing its best to make the lives of the born miserable and guilt-ridden.

Of course, there is one exception: the issue of paedophilia, sex crime and the "celibate" religious, on which issue the church only pronounces when forced into it by yet another scandal.

Given the RC obsession with preserving every zygote, I'm amazed they haven't started a world-wide crusade against masturbation. Come on, all sing "Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good .."
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
quote:
I'm sorry, Justinian - I'm not responding to that.
Why not, CB?
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Personally I consider brainless bundles of cells with human DNA to have about the moral value of hair follacles.

It seems to me that statements like that probably cause a lot of people who are otherwise sympathetic to the issue of choice to continue to consider themselves pro-life.

The zygote may not yet be a human person in the fullest sense. It may not yet have the same moral value that its mother has. But there is a great deal of distance between "not yet a person" and a hair follicle. Destroying a zygote may not be murder, but destroying it needlessly makes at least some prochoice people deeply uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable, at any rate. That's why I want to reduce the frequency of abortion through contraception, education, social welfare, and various other means. Those means are more expensive than abortions -- but those brainless bundles of cells are worth spending some money on.
 
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
I suppose it would be helpful to know what it is about the zygote that sets it apart in personhood from a tetranoma - presumably potential to develop life, though that might be up for dispute if it had a genetic abnormality incompatible with survival.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Personally I consider brainless bundles of cells with human DNA to have about the moral value of hair follacles.

It seems to me that statements like that probably cause a lot of people who are otherwise sympathetic to the issue of choice to continue to consider themselves pro-life.

The zygote may not yet be a human person in the fullest sense. It may not yet have the same moral value that its mother has. But there is a great deal of distance between "not yet a person" and a hair follicle. Destroying a zygote may not be murder, but destroying it needlessly makes at least some prochoice people deeply uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable, at any rate. That's why I want to reduce the frequency of abortion through contraception, education, social welfare, and various other means. Those means are more expensive than abortions -- but those brainless bundles of cells are worth spending some money on.

Honestly I don't normally go that far. My normal metaphor for abortion is limb amputation - it's squicky, it's messy, it's unpleasant, and it makes most people shudder to think about happening to them. It also isn't something anyone in their senses would want to ban - and gives the appropriate "Chewing your own leg off" spin to segue into "How do we prevent the limbs getting in the trap in the first place" (social justice, contraception).

On the other hand given quite how much of a dead horse abortion is round here the chances of actually converting people through polite argument are almost nil. Both barrels sometimes has its place.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Honestly I don't normally go that far. My normal metaphor for abortion is limb amputation


That seems like an effective metaphor to me.

quote:
On the other hand given quite how much of a dead horse abortion is round here the chances of actually converting people through polite argument are almost nil. Both barrels sometimes has its place.
I suppose. But people on the Ship have been known to be persuaded, over a long period of time, by reasonable arguments and evidence. Attacks with both barrels may be useful for establishing which side someone is on, but I doubt they are much use in encouraging someone to change sides, or even to think about which side they're on.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Perhaps we are approaching this from the wrong angle. If you start from the premise that all abortion is wrong, but you are a compassionate person who wants to avoid inflicting unnecessary suffering on others, you might end up in a similar position to the RCC. In some ways it's similar to their position on marriage; they don't allow divorce at all, but if you can comply with something on this handy list of grounds for annulment you can pretend you never got married in the first place. So they are trying to bend the rules against abortion as far as possible without actually breaking them (because of the blanket ban on abortion). If your life-threatening pregnancy or your abusive marriage doesn't fit one of the conditions in the get-out clause, it's tough on you. But they are trying, within the constraints of their absolutist worldview.

I thought I'd replied to this, Jane R. Thank you for posting it. I found it by far the most helpful thing anyone has said about the RC POV.

Of course, I think the RC reasoning on divorce is a sort of verbal game-playing, too. But you have at least provided me a way of understanding the game that may be less blame-worthy. I've been thinking about it since you posted, and will keep thinking about it. It's helpful.
 
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Likewise, the fact that Ms. Halappanavar was dilated and leaking amniotic fluid seems to be uncontested in any media account I've come across. This indicates a high probability of uterine infection (and is one of the reasons miscarriages were so terrifying in the age before antibiotics). "At any gestational age, a patient with evidence of an intrauterine infection . . . is best cared for by an expeditious delivery" according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, which I guess means that I'm also assuming human reproduction works the same in Ireland as in the U.S.

All of which is beside the main point. If you start from your position that doing nothing is the morally superior position, outcomes like this are an easily foreseeable result.

We really don't know enough about what went on with her treatment. It seems that prior to the induced miscarriage she wasn't given antibiotics at all, which all outsider medical opinion says is obligatory practice. That's what killed her, and catholic ethics has no problem with antibiotics.

As I've argued before, immediately aborting the baby on arrival would have undoubtedly saved her life. But would UK hospitals do that? Yes if the seriousness of the infection justified it, but not otherwise. Abortion carries its own risks, and from what I can gather the 'natural' miscarriage process is preferred unless such complications arise.

So we really need to know why this poor woman's serious infection wasn't correctly diagnosed on arrival and also why she wasn't given antibiotics immediately, as is standard practice. Until then there are no grounds for chalking this death up to the 'evil catholics'.
 
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

Blogger and OB/GYN Dr. Jen Gunter details why this statement is more likely to confuse than clarify.

quote:
The statement from the Irish Catholic Bishops is medically nonsensical, contradictory, and immoral and as it represents a group of men who have never practiced medicine opining on an aspect of medical care that they clearly can’t understand.

The only thing this statement clarifies is how Irish physicians could easily be confused by an Irish abortion law steeped in religion, and thus reinforces the claim that Catholicism contributed to Dr. Halappanavar’s death.

Read the rest for the specifics.
ISTM this is an opinion piece and little more. She has nothing to say on why the mother didn't receive antibiotics in good time, but takes the "old men in dresses telling women what to do with their bodies" line. Yet what the bishops say is neither contradictory nor medically nonsensical and makes perfect sense IF you believe that deliberately destroying an unborn child is murder. Everything stems from that. The writer doesn't share this belief, but rather than acknowledge this ethical disagreement as the root of the problem she harps on about stupidity and nonsense and heartless old men playing with women's lives.
Say what you like about catholic bishops (as many do) they are not *completely* stupid and their position is clearly informed by highly qualified medical experts, of which there are many on either side of the abortion debate.

Chesterbelloc made a sound point when he said that catholic authorities make every effort to work round these moral principles but cannot/will not break them.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Personally I consider brainless bundles of cells with human DNA to have about the moral value of hair follacles.

It seems to me that statements like that probably cause a lot of people who are otherwise sympathetic to the issue of choice to continue to consider themselves pro-life.

The zygote may not yet be a human person in the fullest sense. It may not yet have the same moral value that its mother has. But there is a great deal of distance between "not yet a person" and a hair follicle. Destroying a zygote may not be murder, but destroying it needlessly makes at least some prochoice people deeply uncomfortable. It makes me uncomfortable, at any rate. That's why I want to reduce the frequency of abortion through contraception, education, social welfare, and various other means. Those means are more expensive than abortions -- but those brainless bundles of cells are worth spending some money on.

Yep.
 
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Honestly I don't normally go that far. My normal metaphor for abortion is limb amputation



Surely a metaphor created to deliberately miss the point? A lump of flesh is removed from the body certainly, but no one dies.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
I suppose. But people on the Ship have been known to be persuaded, over a long period of time, by reasonable arguments and evidence. Attacks with both barrels may be useful for establishing which side someone is on, but I doubt they are much use in encouraging someone to change sides, or even to think about which side they're on.

That depends on how someone makes their decision which side they are on. As far as I can tell, ChesterBelloc is on the pro-life side primarily because he is a Roman Catholic and pro-life approaches follow from that rather than are accessible independently (which is the approach to take first, I agree).

This means that in order to have a chance of reaching him, I need to blow up large chunks of Roman Catholic teaching - it is a contingent rather than independently reasoned belief in his mind.

The specific doctrine that needs to be blown up then have salt ploughed into the earth is the Doctrine of Double Effect - which is absolutely the Pontius Pilate doctrine of "I do this because this is what the rules say and I wash my hands of the consequences".

Different approaches have different places. And the soft approach has been tried.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Foxymoron:
quote:
ISTM this is an opinion piece and little more.
So Catholic bishops with no medical qualifications are entitled to an opinion, but experienced ob/gyn specialists who disagree with you aren't? Interesting point of view.

Just for the record, on the UK mainland (which has different criteria for establishing whether a doctor is guilty of malpractice) a woman arriving in Maternity in those circumstances would probably be induced unless she herself asked the medical team to do everything possible to save the baby (and if she did and they thought her life was in danger they would try to talk her into having the induction anyway). If she was in severe pain and asking for an induction/termination she WOULD be given whatever treatment was necessary to save her life, even if the treatment could be labelled 'medical abortion'. It would be nice if you could acknowledge that. And perhaps afterwards you might consider taking a break; I calmed down long enough to think of an explanation of the Catholic position on abortion that Chesterbelloc was kind enough to thank me for, but your comments are making me angry again - almost as angry as Justinian.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Foxymoron:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Honestly I don't normally go that far. My normal metaphor for abortion is limb amputation



Surely a metaphor created to deliberately miss the point? A lump of flesh is removed from the body certainly, but no one dies.

But a large part of my point was that the so-called pro-life lobby don't act as if anyone dies either. If they were spending a significant amount of time on medical research about spontaneous abortion (the world's greatest killer in their eyes if someone dies in an abortion) I'd have more sympathy.

But they only seem to act against medically or surgically induced abortions rather than natural reasons, which is precisely why a procedure that's icky and in which no one dies is a good analogy.
 
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
[QB] Foxymoron:
quote:
ISTM this is an opinion piece and little more.
So Catholic bishops with no medical qualifications are entitled to an opinion, but experienced ob/gyn specialists who disagree with you aren't? Interesting point of view.
Yet of course there are many experienced and qualified obstetricians and gynaecologists who would agree with me - this really isn't a tale of shiny modern medical science VS ignorant medieval myths, however much you would like it to be.

quote:
Just for the record, on the UK mainland (which has different criteria for establishing whether a doctor is guilty of malpractice) a woman arriving in Maternity in those circumstances would probably be induced unless she herself asked the medical team to do everything possible to save the baby (and if she did and they thought her life was in danger they would try to talk her into having the induction anyway).
It seems in this case though that the woman was misdiagnosed from the very beginning - she wasn't given antibiotics or anything for pain control. So we must assume the inadequate treatment she received was due to malpractice and not catholic dogma. Also as I understand it in Ireland such an induction is not forbidden as it only triggers the natural birth process anyway (even though the odds of a 17 week child surviving are negligible). Induction is not abortion: it is not the deliberate and direct killing of an unborn child.

quote:
If she was in severe pain and asking for an induction/termination she WOULD be given whatever treatment was necessary to save her life, even if the treatment could be labelled 'medical abortion'. It would be nice if you could acknowledge that.
We're all agreed that IF a direct medical abortion was the ONLY thing that would save a woman's life then it would not be available in an Irish hospital. I'm saying that it seems unlikely that the abortion ban is a factor which led to the mother's death in this particular case.

How often such an abort-or-die situation actually happens is open to question. The maternal mortality rate is significantly lower in Ireland than the UK, suggesting that it is very rare - and possibly never happens, if the pro-life medical experts (which they are, some of them eminently so) are correct in saying that there are always effective alternatives. Of course they may be ideologically driven, but you can say that about everyone.

quote:
And perhaps afterwards you might consider taking a break; I calmed down long enough to think of an explanation of the Catholic position on abortion that Chesterbelloc was kind enough to thank me for, but your comments are making me angry again - almost as angry as Justinian.
I'm not trying to stir things up for the hell of it! You seem very nice. But this is my opinion. You can't expect people to stop disagreeing with you just because it makes you cross.

And NO ONE is as angry as Justinian...
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I think this thread has come off the rails somewhere along the line in confusing pro-life and pro-choice, getting into the two separated camps, whereas the opening of the thread was specifically to do with the issue of the Savita case here in Ireland. That case has highlighted a need for legislation (which is now looking increasingly likely) to tidy up a ruling in the 'X case' that went to the High Court. It isn't actually a pro-life or pro-choice issue on abortion, as it won't get that far; at least, I don't think it will. It will be about legislation that gives the mother a right to life, and the right to save her own life in the event of complications in pregnancy, and also covering doctors and surgeons who will need to act on a mother's request. The statements from Bishop's here have been so wide of the mark that it's been laughable. They haven't understood the context of the possible future legislation, and they have little understanding of the risks they pose by trying to paint it as a pro-life vrs pro-choice affair. The are willfully ignoring the facts of what has happened and what will happen. This is about a state sanctioned death sentence, where a mother must accept that even if she and the child are 100% certain to die, the doctors still cannot act. This is not malpractice - it's about a messy law and subsequently unclear rulings in the High Court. It needs to be tidied up.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Foxymoron:
Induction is not abortion: it is not the deliberate and direct killing of an unborn child.

What? How do you think misoprostol -- the "abortion drug" -- works?

If inducing the delivery of a premature embryo or fetus is not an abortion, then abortions have become very rare in deed.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Foxymoron:
quote:
I'm not trying to stir things up for the hell of it! You seem very nice. But this is my opinion. You can't expect people to stop disagreeing with you just because it makes you cross.
Nice bit of patronising rhetoric there. If I had the spare time today I would call you to Hell for sexism. But I didn't say you should change your opinion; I was merely attempting to point out that if your aim in engaging with this thread is to persuade people that the Catholic Church are not as bad as the press are saying you are going the wrong way about it.

And please don't masquerade as someone who knows what he's talking about when you obviously don't understand how inductions work.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Foxymoron:
The maternal mortality rate is significantly lower in Ireland than the UK, suggesting that it is very rare - and possibly never happens, if the pro-life medical experts (which they are, some of them eminently so) are correct in saying that there are always effective alternatives.

A large part of Ireland's maternal mortality rate being lower than Britain's is differing definitions between the countries and significant underreporting in Ireland. Comparing like with like doubles the Irish maternal mortality rate. And yes, Britain's is known to be bad.

quote:
And NO ONE is as angry as Justinian...
You really haven't seen very much anger if you think that. (One of my friends was beaten up by her father last night - not a good day to make such hyperbolic claims).

Justinian just isn't allowed to take the chunks he'd like to out of the idiot surgeon who fucked up his little sister's heart once and will in the next month or two get a second chance - and that's a best case scenario. So he's channelling it instead.
 
Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Foxymoron:
It seems in this case though that the woman was misdiagnosed from the very beginning - she wasn't given antibiotics or anything for pain control. So we must assume the inadequate treatment she received was due to malpractice and not catholic dogma. Also as I understand it in Ireland such an induction is not forbidden as it only triggers the natural birth process anyway (even though the odds of a 17 week child surviving are negligible). Induction is not abortion: it is not the deliberate and direct killing of an unborn child.

That's a medically nonsensical distinction. Abortion is not "the deliberate and direct killing of an unborn child", it's the early termination of a pregnancy. Redefining medical terms for political or theological reasons seems vaguely Orwellian.

At any rate, some further quotes from Dr. Gunter, including the gruesome technical evaluations you seem to consider necessary for her opinion to be valid.

quote:
What does the standard of medical care say about this treatment? Without access to the chart, “miscarrying” at 17 weeks can only mean one of three things”

A) Ruptured membranes

B) Advanced cervical dilation

C) Labor (this is unlikely, although it is possible that she had preterm labor that arrested and left her with scenario B, advanced cervical dilation).

All three of these scenarios have a dismal prognosis, none of which should involve the death of the mother.

The standard of care with ruptured membranes (scenario A) is to offer termination or, if there is no evidence of infection and the pregnancy is desired, the option of observing for a few days to see if the leak seals over and more fluid accumulates. If no fluid accumulates and by some chance the pregnancy manages to go beyond 24 weeks (the vast majority of pregnancies with ruptured membranes delivery within a week), survival is unlikely given the lungs require amniotic fluid to develop. I have seen the rare case where a woman with no infection (and no fluid) elects conservative management in the hopes that might make it to at least 24 weeks in the pregnancy, however, I have never heard of a baby surviving in this scenario. Regardless, if infection is suspected at any time the treatment is antibiotics and delivery not antibiotics alone.

The standard of care with scenario B involves offering delivery or possibly a rescue cerclage (a stitch around the cervix to try to prevent further dilation and thus delivery) depending on the situation. Inducing delivery (or a D and E) is offered because a cervix that has dilated significantly often leads to labor or an infection as the membranes are now exposed to the vaginal flora. Many women do not want wait for infection. A rescue cerclage is not without risks and is contraindicated with ruptured membranes or any sign of infection. Rescue cerclage is a very case by case intervention and well beyond the scope of this post. These decisions are difficult and the mark of good medical care is that all scenarios are discussed, all interventions that are technically possible offered, and then the patient makes an informed decision. All with the understanding that if infection develops, delivery is indicated.

Not only do I know these scenarios backwards and forwards as an OB/GYN, I had ruptured membranes in my own pregnancy at 22 weeks, a rescue cerclage, and then sepsis. I know how bad it can be.

As Ms. Halappanavar died of an infection, one that would have been brewing for several days if not longer, the fact that a termination was delayed for any reason is malpractice. Infection must always be suspected whenever, preterm labor, premature rupture of the membranes, or advanced premature cervical dilation occurs (one of the scenarios that would have brought Ms. Halappanavar to the hospital).

Emphasis added. It should be noted that her widower has been claiming Ms. Halappanavar was both dilated and leaking amniotic fluid, so there's a decent reason to accept that premise.

quote:
Originally posted by Foxymoron:
We're all agreed that IF a direct medical abortion was the ONLY thing that would save a woman's life then it would not be available in an Irish hospital.

Are we agreed on that? It seems contrary to the ruling in the X case. On the other hand if you're arguing that the de facto availability of such procedure in Ireland is different than its de juris permissibility, that may be a valid point.
 
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Foxymoron:
Induction is not abortion: it is not the deliberate and direct killing of an unborn child.

What? How do you think misoprostol -- the "abortion drug" -- works?

If inducing the delivery of a premature embryo or fetus is not an abortion, then abortions have become very rare in deed.

I think confusion arises here because in the catholic view the definition of an abortion is a matter of intention, whereas for a non-catholic or secular view it is purely a medical procedure.

In the catholic view abortion is an intrinsically evil act. Intention defines whether an act is evil or not, regardless of the act itself. An example:


quote:
The difference is similar to the following analogy: a doctor treating a patient with a serious illness gives medication which carries an adverse risk. Unfortunately the patient dies after the treatment. The doctor did not intend to kill the patient but to save his life. However, if the doctor, knowing that the patient is seriously ill, gives medication with the sole intention of killing the patient, then this would be murder.
This article -

May a woman agree to inducing delivery of her nonviable defective baby?

- discusses the "proportionate" view that abortion may be justified as the lesser of two evils. Catholic theology rejects this (apparently - I'm no expert), arguing that it is a false or unreliable justification because "evaluating all the good and evil consequences and effects" of one’s own acts is an "exhaustive rational calculation that is not possible."

Basically they argue that what might be characterised as 'benefits' or 'pros and cons' morality is not a solid and reliable basis from which to evaluate these questions, given their supreme gravity.

But the article does conclude that in the situation given in the article - a mother with diabetes and a defective and non-viable unborn baby that will not survive for more than a few minutes - an early induced birth is permissible when it is performed to address the serious risk to the mother's health if the pregnancy continues. The death of the child then is only as an unintended consequence of actions taken to protect the mother.

Although this still leaves the question unanswered as to whether the induction would be allowed if the baby is healthy and shows every chance of surviving. On this one I don't know, but it seems unlikely.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Foxymoron:
Intention defines whether an act is evil or not, regardless of the act itself.

And this is why I was talking about Pontius Pilate and following the rules while washing your hands of the consequences earlier. Same ethical process.

And for non-Catholic ethics, I refer you to Shakesville on how much intent matters in communication (short version: a bit but it's ridiculous to claim that Intent Is Magic).
 
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Nice bit of patronising rhetoric there. If I had the spare time today I would call you to Hell for sexism.

"You seem nice" is not sexist. "Alright, calm down love" would be.


quote:
But I didn't say you should change your opinion; I was merely attempting to point out that if your aim in engaging with this thread is to persuade people that the Catholic Church are not as bad as the press are saying you are going the wrong way about it.
Well ok, then tell me how I'm going the wrong way about it. Telling me it's making you angry is neither here nor there.


quote:
And please don't masquerade as someone who knows what he's talking about when you obviously don't understand how inductions work.
I'm trying. Enlighten me?
 
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Foxymoron:
The maternal mortality rate is significantly lower in Ireland than the UK, suggesting that it is very rare - and possibly never happens, if the pro-life medical experts (which they are, some of them eminently so) are correct in saying that there are always effective alternatives.

A large part of Ireland's maternal mortality rate being lower than Britain's is differing definitions between the countries and significant underreporting in Ireland. Comparing like with like doubles the Irish maternal mortality rate. And yes, Britain's is known to be bad.
Ok fair enough. Still impressively low though. If 'death due to medieval moral bullshit' is happening it seems to have a negligible effect on their stats.


Sorry to hear about your little sister.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Foxymoron:
quote:
I think confusion arises here because in the catholic view the definition of an abortion is a matter of intention, whereas for a non-catholic or secular view it is purely a medical procedure.
The second part of your statement is a gross over-simplification of the wide variety of views on abortion held by non-Catholics, ranging from Justinian's 'a zygote has no more moral value than a hair follicle' through the utilitarian 'well OK then, if you really must' past myself (and Josephine?) 'yes, the unborn child is valuable and killing it is wrong, but sometimes it's the only option if the mother wants to live' all the way to the fundamentalist fruitcake 'abortion is always wrong! kill all the doctors so nobody can have them!'

Most people reading the Catholic hierarchy's comments on this case would lump them in with the fundamentalist fruitcakes. Is that really where you want to be?

The first part of your statement is also problematic as it appears to assume that nobody except you ever cares about intention. However Justinian has already commented on this, so I'm not going to bother.
 
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :
 
Foxymoron:
quote:
I think confusion arises here because in the catholic view the definition of an abortion is a matter of intention, whereas for a non-catholic or secular view it is purely a medical procedure.
The second part of your statement is a gross over-simplification of the wide variety of views on abortion held by non-Catholics, ranging from Justinian's 'a zygote has no more moral value than a hair follicle' through the utilitarian 'well OK then, if you really must' past myself (and Josephine?) 'yes, the unborn child is valuable and killing it is wrong, but sometimes it's the only option if the mother wants to live' all the way to the fundamentalist fruitcake 'abortion is always wrong! kill all the doctors so nobody can have them!'

Most people reading the Catholic hierarchy's comments on this case would lump them in with the fundamentalist fruitcakes. Is that really where you want to be?

The first part of your statement is also problematic as it appears to assume that nobody except you ever cares about intention. Maybe intention is the means by which Catholic theologians are able to wiggle round the 'no abortions ever' rule, but any non-Catholic you speak to on the subject is bound to be confused by your arbitrary redefinitions of medical terms in common use. Outside the Catholic bubble, an induced labour before the foetus is viable IS an abortion, whether or not it is medically necessary to save the mother.
 
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Foxymoron:
It seems in this case though that the woman was misdiagnosed from the very beginning - she wasn't given antibiotics or anything for pain control. So we must assume the inadequate treatment she received was due to malpractice and not catholic dogma. Also as I understand it in Ireland such an induction is not forbidden as it only triggers the natural birth process anyway (even though the odds of a 17 week child surviving are negligible). [qb]Induction is not abortion: it is not the deliberate and direct killing of an unborn child.

That's a medically nonsensical distinction. Abortion is not "the deliberate and direct killing of an unborn child", it's the early termination of a pregnancy. Redefining medical terms for political or theological reasons seems vaguely Orwellian.

I was only reporting that that is how the catholic church sees it, not claiming it as the be-all and end-all definition. Anyway the word was around long before it was appropriated by modern medicine, so who is doing the redefining here?

quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

As Ms. Halappanavar died of an infection, one that would have been brewing for several days if not longer, the fact that a termination was delayed for any reason is malpractice.
As I've repeatedly said it appears that the infection was undiagnosed and untreated - that would be the malpractice. IF it was identified that the woman's life was at risk AND the removal of the child was delayed according to Irish Law until it had died, THEN that is scandalous.
 
Posted by Foxymoron (# 10343) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Foxymoron:
quote:
I think confusion arises here because in the catholic view the definition of an abortion is a matter of intention, whereas for a non-catholic or secular view it is purely a medical procedure.
Most people reading the Catholic hierarchy's comments on this case would lump them in with the fundamentalist fruitcakes. Is that really where you want to be?
Holy shit, no! Fuck deciding for myself - I wanna go along with whatever most people think.

quote:
The first part of your statement is also problematic as it appears to assume that nobody except you ever cares about intention.
Jaysus, what have I got to do not to offend you? I am only trying to elaborate on the catholic view, as I understand it. It seems like any catholic viewpoint is interpreted by you in a knee-jerk fashion as high-handed condemnatory self-righteousness. And you respond with high-handed condemnatory self-righteousness.

quote:
Maybe intention is the means by which Catholic theologians are able to wiggle round the 'no abortions ever' rule, but any non-Catholic you speak to on the subject is bound to be confused by your arbitrary redefinitions of medical terms in common use.
As per my previous post, medical science doesn't own the word "abortion". For catholics, "abortion" means the deliberate killing of a viable foetus where its death is the primary purpose.

I am not a catholic. But I believe that their views, when clearly understood (as I am attempting to do), are more sane, compassionate and rational than 10 billion internet articles currently shouting that barbaric medieval myths has killed another pregnant woman would suggest.
 
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
spontaneous abortion = miscarriage
medical abortion = termination of pregnancy usually by taking an abortifacient, under medical supervision most likely RU486 (mifepristone)
surgical abortion = termination of pregnancy by surgery

And then there are illnesses like brucellosis that can cause abortion.

I suspect the phrase you're looking for is termination of pregnancy.
 
Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Foxymoron:
As per my previous post, medical science doesn't own the word "abortion". For catholics, "abortion" means the deliberate killing of a viable foetus where its death is the primary purpose.

Intent or purpose has nothing at all to do with the ordinary meaning of the word abortion.

If you're going to communicate with other people, it helps to use words in the ordinary way. If you give a word a specialized meaning, you need to make it clear, every time you use it, that you are NOT using the word the way other people use it. Otherwise, what you are doing is called "equivocation." It's a dishonest form of argumentation.

Laws, regulations, medical billing codes, and the like do not provide a special category for "abortions as defined by the RCC." So when we're talking about abortion, the rest of us are talking about the termination of pregnancies, without regard to the intent of the termination.

If you argue that there is a specifically RC definition of the word, you're just supporting the accusation I made earlier, that Chesterbelloc denied. Redefining the word allows the RCC to play word-games, saying, "We disapprove of these terminations, so we'll call them abortions; we approve of those, so we'll call them something else. This lets us pretend to ourselves and to everyone that we find all abortions morally repugnant. It lets us avoid having the discussion about when abortions might be acceptable or necessary by pretending that all of them are unacceptable and unnecessary. It lets us preserve our own moral purity, and condemn others, at the same time, simply by deciding what we want the words to mean."

quote:
"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master, that's all."

If there is an official RC definition of abortion that differs from the usual definition of the word, I'd like to see it from an official source.
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Foxymoron:
As per my previous post, medical science doesn't own the word "abortion". For catholics, "abortion" means the deliberate killing of a viable foetus where its death is the primary purpose.

If that were true then the Roman Catholic Church would have no problem at all with abortions in the case of ectopic pregnancies (i.e. where the foetus implants into the fallopian tube or even outside the womb altogether). Such pregnancies are automatically non-viable and need to be terminated to save the mother. That is the primary purpose of an abortion in the case of an ectopic pregnancy.

However you aren't allowed to carry out an abortion even then. What you need to do is cut out the fallopian tube with the baby inside. Which doesn't even approach basic plausible deniability.

quote:
I am not a catholic. But I believe that their views, when clearly understood (as I am attempting to do), are more sane, compassionate and rational than 10 billion internet articles currently shouting that barbaric medieval myths has killed another pregnant woman would suggest.
I believed that once. Then I started doing my research.
 
Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :
 
In discussing termination, it is important to bear in mind there IS no baby and no mother. This terminology seems to beg the question - already.

There may be a foetus, and a woman.
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
In your opinion.
 
Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :
 
Who else's opinion would I be expressing ?

It has a stronger claim to facticity than say, the contents of the creeds.

Or were you speaking as 'a blood sucking lawyer' ?

[ 30. November 2012, 13:50: Message edited by: Imersge Canfield ]
 
Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :
 
Another instance of Irish abortion practice at work. In this instance relating to a woman with 'a terminal illness'.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2012/11/another-irish-abortion-scandal-emerges
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Imersge Canfield:
Who else's opinion would I be expressing ?

It has a stronger claim to facticity than say, the contents of the creeds.

Or were you speaking as 'a blood sucking lawyer' ?

Unnecessarily personal, I think. Take it to Hell if you're that upset by me.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
hosting
We've been short staffed and short of time recently with both Tony and I being out of action at various times. This thread seems to have been running in a bad tempered way with people getting personal with each other and now people insulting each other.

So let's be clear - making cracks about someone being a 'blood sucking lawyer is a breach of Commandment 3. Such remarks may not be made outside of the hell board. Similarly all personal conflicts must be taken to Hell and must not be continued here.

thanks,
Louise
Dead horses host

hosting off
 
Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
Honestly I don't normally go that far. My normal metaphor for abortion is limb amputation


That seems like an effective metaphor to me.

I've expanded it into a blog post that sums up my take on the whole thing.
 
Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :
 
I'm sorry about that. I thought I was quoting a light-hearted Occupation entry from the profile, and that this could lighten things a little. But I am new to the website, and still trying to work out how things work, and what's what.

[ 02. December 2012, 19:19: Message edited by: Imersge Canfield ]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Accepted [Smile]
 
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Actually, having forgotten but now been reminded in the Styx that I do indeed self-describe as a 'blood-sucking lawyer', it's me who owes you an apology, so here it is: sorry for taking it personally and having a go at you for it.
 
Posted by Imersge Canfield (# 17431) on :
 
Thanks very much. That's nice of you. I appreciate it.

It comes as quite a relief, to be honest, as I regretted having messed up like this, and so soon !(Shades of school days) I so much wanted to join in, and be part of things here, in a positive way.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Well, I know a lot of you won't like the source of this latest bit of news, but I haven't yet found it anywhere else - and it does link to the original interview.

So here is a LifeSite article reporting on an interview the journalist behind the original story gave this weekend.

No comment from me. Make you own minds up.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
No comment from me. Um. Except this: whatever your opinion of LifeSite, you can skip the whole report there and link straight to the interview on Irish radio here. I seriously recommend to those who have any opinion on this tragic case listening to the whole interview plus discussion - this will be 25 mins of your life not wasted.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
[I'm-a-moron]Meant to say - that radio interview starts around 33 mins in on the link I posted. Sorry about that.[/I'm-a-moron]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Here's the story if you want it without the 'Life Institute' spin. It doesn't change anything. The Savita case merely highlighted an issue that needs dealt with that successive governments have deliberately avoided and fudged. Whether or not she asked for an abortion, or at which point, and whether or not the hospital ever records such requests is of little consequence, now that she is dead.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Whether or not she asked for an abortion, or at which point, and whether or not the hospital ever records such requests is of little consequence, now that she is dead.

"Of little consequence"? It's not "of little consequence" to the current debate in Ireland given how many peopole are using this case as an argument for changing the law - without, it appears, the facts about the case being available. And it's certainly not "of little consequence" to this discussion. Not at all. Have you read this thread, fletcher?
 
Posted by Niteowl (# 15841) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Whether or not she asked for an abortion, or at which point, and whether or not the hospital ever records such requests is of little consequence, now that she is dead.

"Of little consequence"? It's not "of little consequence" to the current debate in Ireland given how many peopole are using this case as an argument for changing the law - without, it appears, the facts about the case being available. And it's certainly not "of little consequence" to this discussion.
I thought it was of little consequence myself as the life of the mother was at stake regardless of whether she asked for an abortion or not. Here, the doctors would have made it plain to the mother what the risks were and asked her if she wanted an abortion because of those risks - and if the baby was in fact dead or imminently dying, it's a certainty the mother was going to die unless the baby was removed. The law as it stands in Ireland basically made the death of the mother a certainty.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
But the whole point, as far as I was concerned, of the interview was that it established just how few facts there were to go on. The jounalist who broke the story herself admitted that we just don't know when or whether an abortion/induction was requested, when antibiotics were administered, what the patient's records recorded or a whole host of other things that had previously been speculated upon - often because there are patent inconsistencies within and between different incomplete accounts.

To say that we already pretty much know what this case is telling us - even before the facts are known - strikes me as bizarre at best.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Here's the story if you want it without the 'Life Institute' spin.

I'm not defending LifeSite as a perfectly neutral source here, but the piece you linked to above tells one very little about the contents of the radio interview, whereas the Hilary White piece I cited actually describes it in some detail. I have also actually listened to the whole interview. Really, there's no substitute for that, it seems to me. I strongly recommend it.

[ 04. December 2012, 17:27: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
posted by Chester:
quote:

The jounalist who broke the story herself admitted that we just don't know when or whether an abortion/induction was requested, when antibiotics were administered, what the patient's records recorded or a whole host of other things that had previously been speculated upon....

No, she didn't. She was interviewing Savita's husband, who incidentally is taking his case to the European courts. She reported what he said, as a 'credible witness' in her mind. Nobody got the hospital reports, and probably nobody should have got them, other than those investigating the situation in an official capacity. But do you honestly expect hospitals, dominated by Roman Catholic orders and clergy, to start recording requests for abortion?! Of course they won't, and there will be discrepancies in accounts. The man has just lost his wife; he's not going to be thinking too clearly, and a hospital and board that writes an account of events after the event has taken place is going to make damn sure they cover their ass. It's not rocket science.

As to it being of little consequence, I meant - as Niteowl pointed out - that the law is so muddled that death was inevitable. And Ireland is not about to rush into changing the law without knowing all of the facts, and has never through the whole course of this ever suggested rushing into changing the law. In any case it is very likely - if you had taken the time to read what I said earlier on this thread - that it will be a constitutional issue. Constitutional issues cannot be rushed, because the public votes on every minutae of change here in Ireland.

Again; it is not about abortion as understood in the UK or the States per se. It is about clearing up a law to provide doctors and hospital staff with legal rights to act in cases where the death of the child is assured so that doctors and surgeons can act to save the life of the mother. That is what it will come down to if we go to a referendum on the constitution. It's about the legal right to act to save one life instead of sitting back and effectively killing both through total inaction.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
posted by Chester:
quote:
The jounalist who broke the story herself admitted that we just don't know when or whether an abortion/induction was requested, when antibiotics were administered, what the patient's records recorded or a whole host of other things that had previously been speculated upon....
No, she didn't.
Actually, that is precisely what she did.
quote:
When radio interviewer Marc Coleman of Newstalk 106, asked her, “You’re satisfied that [Mr Halappanavar] did request a termination?” Holland responded, “Oh, I’m not satisfied of anything [...] I’m satisfied of what he told me,” she said, “but I await as much as anyone else the inquiry and the findings. I can’t tell for certain. Who knows what will come out in that inquiry? They may come back and say she came in with a disease she caught from something outside the hospital before she even arrived in, and there was no request for termination [...] One may even wonder are requests for terminations recorded at all in Irish maternity hospitals.”

Asked about discrepancies in the reports on the timeline of Mrs. Halappanavar’s care – particularly when, exactly, she started receiving antibiotics after her admittance to hospital – Holland replied, “All one can surmise is that his recollection of events is…the actual timeline… may be a little muddled.” She said that “at one point” Mr. Halappanavar told her that she was only given painkillers, and never received any antibiotics.

This is from Hilary White's article: having listened to the interview I know that's what Holland said.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
But do you honestly expect hospitals, dominated by Roman Catholic orders and clergy, to start recording requests for abortion?!

But as I understand it, it wasn't a Catholic hospital - it was just an ordinary Irish state hospital. I dare say this hospital will record whatever it is required to record by the state. I can't see what the clergy have to do with that.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
As to it being of little consequence, I meant - as Niteowl pointed out - that the law is so muddled that death was inevitable.

Hold on. How can you possibly know that without the evidence, which the journalist herself seems to admit we don't have? Sounds to me as if you've prejudged the issue here.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I think we may be at cross purposes to an extent:

Posted by Chester:

quote:

Actually, that is precisely what she did.

The 'No, she didn't' statement from me was me agreeing with you, as in 'no, she didn't know', ie she was only taking Praveen's word. Sorry if I was unclear; I can see now how it could have been read differently.

quote:

But as I understand it, it wasn't a Catholic hospital - it was just an ordinary Irish state hospital. I dare say this hospital will record whatever it is required to record by the state. I can't see what the clergy have to do with that.

Hehe...ummm, you really don't know how Ireland works. We might be in the same vicinity as you, but it is a very different culture with a different history and with different laws, and different ways of interpreting those laws too. I've described the set up here in the second post at the very beginning of this thread. I don't want to clog it by posting the same thing all over again at great length, but I'm happy to answer specific questions about how it works here in terms of having 'state' hospitals still effectively run by orders and clergy.

quote:

How can you possibly know that without the evidence, which the journalist herself seems to admit we don't have? Sounds to me as if you've prejudged the issue here.

You could say that if the Savita case was the only one highlighting the problems with the current law; but the problem is, it isn't the only one. But as it stands, back on the 19th November the HSE (Health Service Executive) announced its findings into the Savita case, confirming that she had died from complications arising from a miscarriage. The details of this report where also given to the government for consideration and it was discussed in the Dail. However, between the HSE presenting it's findings and the presentation to the Dail, important medical records relating to Savita, which had been requested by Praveen under the Data Protection Commissioners had gone missing, and he also made a claim that he distrusted the findings because many details were missing and the timeline of events appeared to have been changed. There was also a question over the partiality of the HSE review because three of its seven members turned out to be consultants in said same hospital! As a result Praveen has decided to take his case to the European Courts. In the meantime, the government was concerned at what was going on and requested that HIQA make an inquiry into Savita's death; an investigation that will hopefully be completed by Christmas. But even on the HSE account of the case, it is clear that legislation is needed - which is where the government is at, at present. They are already talking about whether or not the legislation will require a referendum. Or perhaps you think the government is jumping the gun and prejudging the issue too?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think we may be at cross purposes to an extent:

Posted by Chester:

quote:

Actually, that is precisely what she did.

The 'No, she didn't' statement from me was me agreeing with you, as in 'no, she didn't know', ie she was only taking Praveen's word. Sorry if I was unclear; I can see now how it could have been read differently.
Thanks for explaining that, Fletcher.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Hehe...ummm, you really don't know how Ireland works. [...] I'm happy to answer specific questions about how it works here in terms of having 'state' hospitals still effectively run by orders and clergy.

I don't claim to know very much about Irish healthcare and certainly don't know enough to gainsay anything you say on that.
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Or perhaps you think the government is jumping the gun and prejudging the issue too?

If they are considering action on legislation that is even partly a reaction to this case without the actual facts about it being available to them, then to that extent I do indeed think they may be jumping the gun. What is the inquiry for if they aren't going to wait for it before making up their minds about what the case teaches us?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
You're still missing the point. The Savita case isn't the only case that has lead to both the public outcry and the decisions that need to be made to make the present law clearer.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
You're still missing the point. The Savita case isn't the only case that has lead to both the public outcry and the decisions that need to be made to make the present law clearer.

I'm not missing anything here, I don't think. My concern has been pretty much exclusively to address what has been said about the Savita case here. Even if the Savita case is just one among many which has led to outcry which could influence future legislation, then I think my point stands: let's not prejudge what actually happened.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Nobody is prejudging it. The HSE presented their report on 19th November. The HIQA enquiry is to do with perceived irregularities in the report that has led to Parveen taking a case to the European courts and concerns that it was not impartial, but the result is the same - she died from complications arising from a miscarriage and the inactivity of doctors bound to do nothing to save her life by a flawed law.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
she died from complications arising from a miscarriage and the inactivity of doctors bound to do nothing to save her life by a flawed law.

Seriously, I don't think that we knowe that at all. What evidence is there that, for example, the doctors did nothing to save her life? Do you know that she was not prescribed antibiotics? I don't.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Firstly, the report has been published to the interested parties - as I've said three times now, on 19th November. The public were given some of the details, but perhaps you think they should have been given them all. I don't. I'm not related to Savita and I don't need to know all the gory details, but instead I trust that the interested parties have already done their job and know what they are talking about in legal terms. I don't need to now when she was given antibiotics or how many pills she swallowed or how many times the bed sheets were changed. If you wish to challenge them, and the government that's your beef.

As it is the government has reviewed the report and has concluded, after considerable debate and legal consultation that legislation is required. Now it is at the stage of working out whether that legislation requires a change to the constitution and therefore a referendum. But I'm sure you know better than all of them put together [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
The HSE presented their report on 19th November.
Hold on a sec, Fletcher. What report are you talking about? The only HSE inquiry into the case that I'm aware of hasn't even reported yet. It didn't deliver its report on Nov 19th - it just announced who the members of enquiry team would be that day. See this Irish Times piece for that day.
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
oh god........I'm loosing the will to live.
They presented their report with the conclusion I already mentioned and they gave some of the details of the timeline.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
You've lost me, I'm afraid. If what you say is true - that there has already been an inquiry and report from the HSE which has alraedy established what happened in this case:

1) Where are their findings reported?
2) Why did they report only some of their findings to the public (as you suggest)
3) Why have they commissioned another inquiry to (in the words of this BBC report): "to determine the facts of her death, identify contributory factors and make recommendations to try to prevent a similar death happening again"?
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
1. see lengthy convoluted discussion above for answer
2. see lengthy convoluted discussion above for answer
3. see lengthy convoluted discussion above for answer
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
I have been following this thread, Fletcher - but yours was the first mention of a concluded HSE report of 19 Nov. Does it make any sense to you that the HSE would announce a new report on the same day that it issued the findings of that one? It doesn't to me. All I ask is for a single newspaper reference to this 19th Nov. concluded inquiry and report. Even a link to a post here where it was discussed would do.

I don't think that's asking too much.

[ETA: follow my last two links if you can't understand my confusion.]

[ 05. December 2012, 21:54: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
Here's the timeline......

16th November: HSE announces that the report into the death of Savita and the outline of the terms used is almost complete and will be announced in a matter of days.

19th November: report is given to interested parties (note this does not include the press - however, some details are given to them, such as the general conclusion and some details of the timeline). The HSE publicly disclose the terms used for the report (no report of this kind is ever 'closed', its an ongoing process technically speaking) and who was involved.

20th November: Praveen makes a formal complaint about the report claiming that some medical reports are missing and that the timeline differs from his recollection of events (it's worth noting it's not only his. Two family members, a nurse and two junior doctors corroborate his story)

21st November: Minister Reilly announces that he feels medical reports are missing and asks for a review (ie. they have to do it all again) and notes that the report was not impartial (three of the seven members on the report were consultants in the hospital)

22nd November:Minister Reilly announces that the review is now in a position to go forward and he is happy it is now impartial in its membership (this review is still ongoing). Press calls for an independent public inquiry.

23rd November: Praveen refuses to consult with the new review and claims he has lost trust in the processes of the HSE and begins to request an independent public inquiry. Press publish lots of confusing stuff and from here on in confuse the terms 'report', 'review' and 'inquiry'

28th November: HIQA are asked to make an inquiry into the death of Savita, but with particular reference to the workings of the first report, the discrepancies of timelines and the missing medical report(s).

29th November: Praveen announces through his solicitor that he is taking his case to the European Court of Human Rights to get an independent public inquiry.

30th November: HIQA wheels into action and makes a public announcement of the terms of their inquiry (ongoing, but expected before Christmas - possibly announced that way to put pressure on the HSE review)

If you patch together all the little bits from RTE news in connection to the public Dail reports you can actually see a vague outline of the timeline and what has been discussed. It will take one hell of a long time, and in some cases you might have to read between the lines of discussions that have been omitted and deemed not in the public interest. Obviously quite a lot of the details of the report won't be in the public realm, dealing as it does with a personal tragedy.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
Fletcher, I'm really not trying to be difficult about this, but your timeline still doesn't add up to me.

First, if there was a report submitted by the HSE on Nov 19th I can't find anything at all about it in the press. The only thing I can find for that date is the announcemnet of a forthcoming HSE inquiry, naming the participants and scope of the inquiry into Savita's death and the circumstances around it. Not a peep about any findings of a just submitted report. See my Irish Times and BBC links above for the announcement of that day of the forthcoming inquiry.

Could it be that the HSE had done some preliminary background work to provide evidence for their forthcoming enquiry and that is what was reported? Possibly. I don't know, because I can find nothing about that anywhere. There must of course have been some kind of fact-finding prelude to the inquiry in the days between Mrs Halappavar's death, but again I can't find the conclusions of a report on Nov 19th

But my principal difficulties remain these.

1) If there had already been a report by the HSE to the "interested parties" that truly settled the facts enough for the Dail to proceed with confidence - as you assert - why did the HSE on the very same day you say they reported the facts of the case to the interested parties annonce "another" inquiry (in their own words) "to determine the facts of her death, identify contributory factors and make recommendations to try to prevent a similar death happening again"?

2) Until that inquiry reports, how can you say that we aready know what happened to Mrs Halappavar?
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Here's the timeline......

16th November: HSE announces that the report into the death of Savita and the outline of the terms used is almost complete and will be announced in a matter of days.

19th November: report is given to interested parties (note this does not include the press - however, some details are given to them, such as the general conclusion and some details of the timeline). The HSE publicly disclose the terms used for the report (no report of this kind is ever 'closed', its an ongoing process technically speaking) and who was involved.

Ok - after a lot of searching around I think I have found the source of your misunderstanding here, Fletcher.

This Irish Times piece from Nov 16th - "HSE still finalising details of Savita Halappanavar inquiry" - says this:
quote:
The terms of reference of the Health Service Executive’s planned inquiry into the death of Savita Halappanavar will be published “in a matter of days”, the executive confirmed tonight.

The HSE said it had identified an international expert in obstetrics and gynaecology to join the inquiry team due to review the Indian national's death.
[...]
The membership of the HSE’s inquiry team, which will involve a number of experts in the relevant disciplines, is currently being finalised.

“Once the inquiry team has convened it will then finalise the terms of reference for the inquiry,” the HSE said. The inquiry team would engage with Ms Halappanavar’s next of kin of as part of the review process, the HSE added.

I can only assume that, somehow, this is what misled you - or a report like it. Note the tenses there. What was tagged there as being expected "in a matter of days" was not the report - it was the announcement of the terms of reference of the forthcoming inquiry. That announcement was indeed made - on Nov 19th, as I've linked to in my posts upstream (one Irish Times piece, one BBC).

There has been no HSE report. The inquiry is ongoing. I don't know where you got the idea that an HSE inquiry report had been released to interested parties on Nov 19th and that its general conclusion was released to the press - I cannot find anything like that that anywhere, and believe me, I have looked. Not a bad summary of the events to date is provided on wiki here.

I don't want to suggest that you've not been playing with a straight bat with me here - but you could easily have made it a lot simpler to follow your account by providing the links to your sources I'd requested. Getting shirty with me instead didn't help.

Now I'm going out to enjoy what's left of my day off.

[ 07. December 2012, 12:07: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 
Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :
 
Rte news

Finally some syrupy slow progress towards legislation. Tomorrow the cabinet will decide what they want to do about it, and in the new year they will start actually doing stuff.
Interesting that they won't allow a free vote though - I wonder what their reasoning is for that.
 
Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :
 
There will be legislation.
quote:
"we will clarify in legislation and regulation what is available by way of treatment to a woman when a pregnancy gives rise to a threat to a woman's life."
"We will also clarify what is legal for the professionals who must provide that care while at all times taking full account of the equal right to life of the unborn child."

says the Minister for Health.

This legislation isn't a consequence of Savita Hallapannavar's death - it's the result of previous court cases which are referred to upthread. (ABC and X)
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
But they were pretty obviously doing it under the cover of the Savita Halappanavar case - without of course waiting for the results of the inquiries into it.
 
Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :
 
It may have spurred them on - the X case was 20 years ago after all.
The ECHR had only just ruled that the law needed clarifying (from the ABC case ) though.

What I meant to say was - this may have happened anyway. Savita's death may have raised public awareness, but the ECHR had already ruled (on 16th October) that the law needed clarifying.

An interesting thing that I noticed was that, while the Constitution says
quote:
the right to life of the unborn...with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother
,
what was said yesterday was
quote:
[providing care for the woman] taking full account of the equal right to life of the unborn child
a neat reversal of whose right to life is equal to the other.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cheesymarzipan:
a neat reversal of whose right to life is equal to the other.

Is "two sixes is equal to six twos" a neat reversal of "six twos is equal to two sixes"?

Whether the document you site meant by this wording to subordinate the life of the unborn to the life of the woman carrying it or not is another matter. If it is meant to do that, it is both equivocating and pretty stupid.
 
Posted by cheesymarzipan (# 9442) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by cheesymarzipan:
a neat reversal of whose right to life is equal to the other.

Is "two sixes is equal to six twos" a neat reversal of "six twos is equal to two sixes"?

Whether the document you site meant by this wording to subordinate the life of the unborn to the life of the woman carrying it or not is another matter. If it is meant to do that, it is both equivocating and pretty stupid.

Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been mostly offline over Christmas.
I think what I meant to say was 'interesting reversal'.
It wasn't a document - it was something the Minister of health said. So it's probably not meant to signify anything.
What I meant was - at the moment, in practical terms, the child's life seems to have priority ('with due regard for the equal right to life of the mother'). What seems to be worrying pro-life people over here is that 'taking full account of the equal right to life of the unborn' may give the woman priority.

We'll have to wait and see what the legislation actually says and how it actually works of course. I was merely speculating.
 
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on :
 
The arithmetic remains the same though, doesn't it? Child's life = mother's life gives you the same result as mother's life = child's life. Equal is equal.

We'll see if the govenment really thinks the two lives are equal when the legislation comes out.

[ 28. December 2012, 16:02: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0