|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Irish abortion
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foxymoron
Shipmate
# 10343
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 72 | From: Surrey | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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).
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foxymoron
Shipmate
# 10343
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 72 | From: Surrey | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foxymoron
Shipmate
# 10343
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 72 | From: Surrey | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foxymoron
Shipmate
# 10343
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 72 | From: Surrey | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foxymoron
Shipmate
# 10343
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 72 | From: Surrey | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
In your opinion.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Louise
Shipmate
# 30
|
Posted
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
--------------------
Now you need never click a Daily Mail link again! Kittenblock replaces Mail links with calming pics of tea and kittens! http://www.teaandkittens.co.uk/ Click under 'other stuff' to find it.
Posts: 6918 | From: Scotland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Accepted ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imersge Canfield
Shipmate
# 17431
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'You must not attribute my yielding, to sinister appetites'
"Preach the gospel and only use jewellry if necessary." (The Midge)
Posts: 419 | From: Sun Ship over Grand Fenwick Duchy | Registered: Nov 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
[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]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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"?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
1. see lengthy convoluted discussion above for answer
2. see lengthy convoluted discussion above for answer
3. see lengthy convoluted discussion above for answer
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
