|
Usual abortion topic rule of using baby to mean baby and foetus to mean foetus applies. These words have meaning. - KwarK |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/ireland-abortion-law-woman-death
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/11/14/ireland-abortion-death.html
Yes the topic header is very tabloid.
But i can't think of any way to put it better.
This woman was in severe pain and asked REPEATEDLY for an abortion. Her request was not granted because 'there was a heartbeat'.
To be more clear, the law in Ireland regarding abortion is an absolute mess. Abortion was banned, but then a supreme court decision allowed abortions in cases where the mother's life was threatened. No government since has stepped up to clarify the law, so doctors are left to make the choice themselves, with the law being able to back up any decision that they make. It absolves the doctors of any responsibility for their actions, and is harmful for both women and fetuses (depending on your view) because doctors are left with nothing but their own subjective views and vague law on which to base their choices.
The article in the guardian that i have linked to makes the situation even clearer and even more disturbing:
"Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby. When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning Savita asked if they could not save the baby could they induce to end the pregnancy. The consultant said: 'As long as there is a foetal heartbeat we can't do anything.'
The doctors KNEW that they were unable to save the baby, and yet still refused the woman an abortion. This seriously highlights the need for instant action on the part of the Irish government.
TBH this case is the fault of Irish law, not catholic law, but as long as the refusal to allow abortions continues, more and more women will needlessly suffer, and in the worst cases, die.
My view on abortion in general is as follows:
Why is this simple moral choice being debated so much. Allow suffering, or do something about it? Its pretty simple to me.
I thought i would leave this in the OP seeing as how the subject of abortion is clearly related and not exactly off topic.
|
So, it's okay to prohibit an abortion so that an "unborn child" may live, and in doing so, kill both the child and the mother.
Duly noted, Ireland.
|
There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to even comment, but I'll say this much. There are so few details it's almost impossible to even know what really happened, but with what we have been told, why didn't she just go into the hospital to get checked instead of asking for an abortion?
Back pain is very common in pregnancy and for all the hospital knew she didn't want to experience it so she'd rather just kill the child. Being against the law, they followed the law. Seems to me instead of pushing for an abortion, they should have pushed for a thorough check on the state of the pregnancy. Doctors may have found the problem sooner then and had time to do something about it.
|
On November 15 2012 00:14 danl9rm wrote:
There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to even comment, but I'll say this much. There are so few details it's almost impossible to even know what really happened, but with what we have been told, why didn't she just go into the hospital to get checked instead of asking for an abortion?
Back pain is very common in pregnancy and for all the hospital knew she didn't want to experience it so she'd rather just kill the child. Being against the law, they followed the law. Seems to me instead of pushing for an abortion, they should have pushed for a thorough check on the state of the pregnancy. Doctors may have found the problem sooner then and had time to do something about it.
Yeah i'm sure its her fault :/
|
Northern Ireland26018 Posts
I'm inclined to attribute this to clinical malpractice rather than anti-abortion adherents. There are provisions in the law that allow abortion in the case of the mother's life being threatened. In this case it would seem to me that the medical staff present misjudged her complications as being non-life threatening, with disastrous consequences.
Will await more details coming out with interest. Irish abortion law is ridiculous, granted but it seems people are jumping on the bandwagon a little too prematurely given one case. The law should have been changed aeons ago, not left and re-evaluated when tragedy strikes.
|
When I read the title I though she just got one really bad paper-cut and bled to death from it. Kill seems like a weird verb to apply to an inanimate object. Gave me a laugh anyway +1 OP.
|
On November 15 2012 00:14 danl9rm wrote:
There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to even comment, but I'll say this much. There are so few details it's almost impossible to even know what really happened, but with what we have been told, why didn't she just go into the hospital to get checked instead of asking for an abortion?
Back pain is very common in pregnancy and for all the hospital knew she didn't want to experience it so she'd rather just kill the child. Being against the law, they followed the law. Seems to me instead of pushing for an abortion, they should have pushed for a thorough check on the state of the pregnancy. Doctors may have found the problem sooner then and had time to do something about it.
First you say that you we don't have enough details to know what really happened. Then you go on to tell us exactly what didn't happen based on your own (bolded) speculation.
|
Looks like the abortion law really killed her. The complications became deadly really fast.
|
I will reserve judgement for the time being. I read the article and nowhere did it say that the fetus caused the disease that killed her nor that having an abortion would have saved her. Only the husband claims it would have saved her and unless he is a doctor or someone that knows, his word doesn't mean much.
|
United States24740 Posts
On November 15 2012 00:25 Poltergeist- wrote:
I will reserve judgement for the time being. I read the article and nowhere did it say that the fetus caused the disease that killed her nor that having an abortion would have saved her. Only the husband claims it would have saved her and unless he is a doctor or someone that knows, his word doesn't mean much.
I think this is smart. On the one hand, the doctors may have failed to identify that she would likely die without an abortion, in which case the law wasn't the problem. On the other, whether she had an abortion or not may not have saved her life. More information is needed before we can arrive at any useful conclusions.
|
I'm quite surprised the doctors didn't think of Sepsis related to the unborn baby. Especially so when it became clear it would be a miscarriage anyway. This definately isn't the first case in medical history of Septicemia due to an unborn baby, and the symptoms she showed are corresponding, especially so when her heartrate went up by alot, and I suspect (although not said so in the article) breathing fast and shallow.
In my opinion this is a mistake on the doctor's part, in part due to bad legislation.
|
So a child was saved and a woman died. Tough.
Murdering millions of baby's is ok but heaven forbid if a woman dies.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 15 2012 00:23 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2012 00:14 danl9rm wrote:
There is so much wrong with your post it's hard to even comment, but I'll say this much. There are so few details it's almost impossible to even know what really happened, but with what we have been told, why didn't she just go into the hospital to get checked instead of asking for an abortion?
Back pain is very common in pregnancy and for all the hospital knew she didn't want to experience it so she'd rather just kill the child. Being against the law, they followed the law. Seems to me instead of pushing for an abortion, they should have pushed for a thorough check on the state of the pregnancy. Doctors may have found the problem sooner then and had time to do something about it. First you say that you we don't have enough details to know what really happened. Then you go on to tell us exactly what didn't happen based on your own (bolded) speculation.
Then close the thread because it's pointless.
The point of my post was to speculate, because that's all we can do here. Otherwise, like I said, close the thread.
|
On November 15 2012 00:30 Bahamut1337 wrote:
So a child was saved and a woman died. Tough.
Murdering millions of baby's is ok but heaven forbid if a woman dies.
No child was saved.
|
On November 15 2012 00:30 Bahamut1337 wrote:
So a child was saved and a woman died. Tough.
Murdering millions of baby's is ok but heaven forbid if a woman dies.
Heartbeat of the baby stopped on Wednesday, she died on Sunday..
|
On November 15 2012 00:30 Bahamut1337 wrote:
So a child was saved and a woman died. Tough.
Murdering millions of baby's is ok but heaven forbid if a woman dies.
Baby was dead 4+ days before the mother. Also, they aren't murdering millions of babies. Abortion is banned in Ireland. I think that summarily covers why nothing in your post is valid to the discussion.
|
On November 15 2012 00:30 Bahamut1337 wrote:
So a child was saved and a woman died. Tough.
Murdering millions of baby's is ok but heaven forbid if a woman dies.
...Did you even read the article? The child died. The pregnancy was going wrong; she was miscarrying.
|
On November 15 2012 00:30 Bahamut1337 wrote:
So a child was saved and a woman died. Tough.
Murdering millions of baby's is ok but heaven forbid if a woman dies.
In your rush to sound like an internet hardass you failed to read the OP or the provided link. The 17 week old fetus died before the mother did. But really, it's more important to post your opinions in the most caustic and inflammatory way without letting ugly things like "what actually happened" get in the way.
|
Northern Ireland26018 Posts
Two links I found just looking around. The crux of the matter appears to be the relative ambiguity of the provision allowing abortion to protect a woman's life As it would pertain to this case, essentially the Doctors weren't sure whether this particular case would have legally allowed them to abort. That's with the information I currently have of course, there may be more to come.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/world/europe/17ireland.html
Christian Science Monitor's Take
|
On November 15 2012 00:30 Bahamut1337 wrote:
So a child was saved and a woman died. Tough.
Murdering millions of baby's is ok but heaven forbid if a woman dies.
you sir got your fact wrong ... and should take reading class
edit : haha probe1 nailed it 2 post above
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
