Irish Woman Dies When Denied Abortion

[Storm]

It is not abundantly clear to me.

Well, you seem to be the only one.

I assume they would have tried to safe her life had they thought her life was in danger because that is what doctors are supposed to do.
I don't get what the qoutes have to do with it.

They bely your assumption.

 

[Draka]

You all seem to doctors. I am not.

I cannot read from the article that it was the because she was dilated that she got the infection and died, or if it was a result of her body rejecting the fetus or what.
I can just read that she had an infection of some kind and died. How that infection came about is not clear to me when I read the article.
It is also not clear to me that she would have survived had she been given an abortion earlier.

Irish law allows (as far as I know) terminating a pregnancy if the mothers life is in danger.
The doctors must not have thought her life was in danger, I assume they would have given her an abortion if they thought that would have saved her.

I agree that the law is stupid. If there was no way to save the fetus she should have had the option of terminating the pregnancy.

All it takes is a little reading and simple research:

From the article in the OP:

“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.

“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’.

“Again on Tuesday morning, the ward rounds and the same discussion. The consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita [a Hindu] said: ‘I am neither Irish nor Catholic’ but they said there was nothing they could do.

“That evening she developed shakes and shivering and she was vomiting. She went to use the toilet and she collapsed. There were big alarms and a doctor took bloods and started her on antibiotics.

“The next morning I said she was so sick and asked again that they just end it, but they said they couldn’t.”

Now, with a little research, a link found on the page of that very article:

* an inevitable miscarriage occurs with heavy bleeding, and the neck of the womb is now open. If the bleeding is severe the mother may slip into medical shock.

In an inevitable miscarriage, even though a foetal heart beat is present, the pregnancy cannot continue to term.

With the neck of the womb already open, the woman’s body prepares to naturally evacuate her womb.

However, with the neck of the womb open, there is an opportunity for bugs such as E.coli to travel from the vagina into the womb before multiplying and infecting the inside wall of the uterus.

Infection can then spread to the woman’s bloodstream, leading to shock and the onset of DIC, which occurs when the normal functioning of blood cells is progressively impaired, leading to multi-organ failure.

Source

It really becomes quite obvious how she got the infections that killed her. Being let to stay in a condition where her cervix was open to infection for upwards of 3 days because the doctors refused to help her was pretty much it. Pretty much...the doctors killed her.

 

[crossfire]

All it takes is a little reading and simple research:

From the article in the OP:


Now, with a little research, a link found on the page of that very article:

Source

It really becomes quite obvious how she got the infections that killed her. Being let to stay in a condition where her cervix was open to infection for upwards of 3 days because the doctors refused to help her was pretty much it. Pretty much...the doctors killed her.

This sort of thing happens even when there are no anti-abortion laws. I know a woman whose membranes ruptured, but her HMO turned her away because she was not in labor. After five days, she developed an infection that killed the baby. The HMO made her deliver the stillborn naturally, and sent her home without treating the infection. She was with her mother-in-law and my mother postpartum. Her mother-in-law is an LPN, and noticed something was wrong. She and my mom rushed her back to the HMO and had to raise hell in order to get them to treat the infection she had. {And I can vouch for these ladies' abilities to raise hell! :run: }

When you have bureaucrats, be they government or corporate, dictating healthcare policies instead of doctors and the patients, this sort of collateral damage {} happens--which is totally contrary to so-called health care! [/end rant]

 

[lunakilo]

Well, you seem to be the only one.

Maybe so, but does that prove me wrong?

I am not arguing that everything is in order here, just that I don't see any clear evidence that this woman was deliberately killed by religious fanatics.

They bely your assumption.

What does bely mean?

 

[Draka]

This sort of thing happens even when there are no anti-abortion laws. I know a woman whose membranes ruptured, but her HMO turned her away because she was not in labor. After five days, she developed an infection that killed the baby. The HMO made her deliver the stillborn naturally, and sent her home without treating the infection. She was with her mother-in-law and my mother postpartum. Her mother-in-law is an LPN, and noticed something was wrong. She and my mom rushed her back to the HMO and had to raise hell in order to get them to treat the infection she had. {And I can vouch for these ladies' abilities to raise hell! :run: }

When you have bureaucrats, be they government or corporate, dictating healthcare policies instead of doctors and the patients, this sort of collateral damage {} happens--which is totally contrary to so-called health care! [/end rant]

Another reason I wish people wouldn't just take what they are given when it comes to medical treatment. It's your health, your life, at stake. If at any time you even have an inkling that you may not be getting the treatment you should you should speak up, ask questions, demand to speak with more doctors, higher up the chain of command at the hospital you are at, or just go somewhere else entirely if you can. Always, always, always ask questions and if you don't get an answer that sounds quite right, ask to speak with someone else. :yes:

 

[Storm]

Maybe so, but does that prove me wrong?

It's not that difficult for anyone else, see Draka's post. If you're the only one having the trouble, maybe it's just you.

I am not arguing that everything is in order here, just that I don't see any clear evidence that this woman was deliberately killed by religious fanatics.

Well, seeing as nobody's made such an argument, I don't see why you'd mention it.

What does bely mean?

Sorry, I misspelled.

Belie:
to show to be false; contradict: His trembling hands belied his calm voice.

 

[Draka]

Maybe so, but does that prove me wrong?

I am not arguing that everything is in order here, just that I don't see any clear evidence that this woman was deliberately killed by religious fanatics.


What does bely mean?

Religious fanatics may be debatable. Bad doctors isn't.

 

[Storm]

Religious fanatics may be debatable. Bad doctors isn't.

This is true. The real question for me, though, is whether it's against the law to be a good doctor.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am not arguing that everything is in order here, just that I don't see any clear evidence that this woman was deliberately killed by religious fanatics.

I agree with you. It is not as clear as some say. It appears possible that the offensive religious
remarks were made independently of the underlying cause of erroneous medical assessment.

 

[sandandfoam]

Another reason I wish people wouldn't just take what they are given when it comes to medical treatment. It's your health, your life, at stake. If at any time you even have an inkling that you may not be getting the treatment you should you should speak up, ask questions, demand to speak with more doctors, higher up the chain of command at the hospital you are at, or just go somewhere else entirely if you can. Always, always, always ask questions and if you don't get an answer that sounds quite right, ask to speak with someone else. :yes:

Not possible in Ireland

 

[Revoltingest]

Not possible in Ireland

Why is that?

 

[lunakilo]

All it takes is a little reading and simple research:

From the article in the OP:


Now, with a little research, a link found on the page of that very article:

Source

It really becomes quite obvious how she got the infections that killed her. Being let to stay in a condition where her cervix was open to infection for upwards of 3 days because the doctors refused to help her was pretty much it. Pretty much...the doctors killed her.

Thank you for looking that up for me...

"However, with the neck of the womb open, there is an opportunity for bugs such as E.coli to travel from the vagina into the womb before multiplying and infecting the inside wall of the uterus.

Infection can then spread to the woman’s bloodstream, leading to shock and the onset of DIC, which occurs when the normal functioning of blood cells is progressively impaired, leading to multi-organ failure."

Right "there is an opportunity" and "Infection can then spread", so not terminating the pregnangy when it became clear it would end in a miscarriage anymay seems stupid when taking into account the risk to the mother.
You will get no argument from me there.

BUT, she was in a hospital surrounded by people who should know what they were dealing with. I can't sit here, read an article and conclude they knew she had a fatal infection and decided to ignore that. Or that they were negligent and simply didn't perform the tests they should have to check if the mothers life was not in danger.

Maybe the hospital staff were negligent and didn't perform their job properly, or maybe they were religious fanatics who decided to do nothing even though they knew that would kill her simply because they didn't want to terminate a pregnancy. MAYBE!

I cannot draw that conclusion from the data at hand.

There is investigations going on that will hopefully find out what happened.

 

[Draka]

Thank you for looking that up for me...

"However, with the neck of the womb open, there is an opportunity for bugs such as E.coli to travel from the vagina into the womb before multiplying and infecting the inside wall of the uterus.

Infection can then spread to the woman’s bloodstream, leading to shock and the onset of DIC, which occurs when the normal functioning of blood cells is progressively impaired, leading to multi-organ failure."

Right "there is an opportunity" and "Infection can then spread", so not terminating the pregnangy when it became clear it would end in a miscarriage anymay seems stupid when taking into account the risk to the mother.
You will get no argument from me there.

BUT, she was in a hospital surrounded by people who should know what they were dealing with. I can't sit here, read an article and conclude they knew she had a fatal infection and decided to ignore that. Or that they were negligent and simply didn't perform the tests they should have to check if the mothers life was not in danger.

Maybe the hospital staff were negligent and didn't perform their job properly, or maybe they were religious fanatics who decided to do nothing even though they knew that would kill her simply because they didn't want to terminate a pregnancy. MAYBE!

I cannot draw that conclusion from the data at hand.

There is investigations going on that will hopefully find out what happened.

I've never said anything about it being "religious fanaticism". There is speculation about it, of course, because of the statements she was told repeatedly when she asked for her pregnancy to be terminated. I've maintained from my beginning posts that the investigations are warranted to find out what really happened here. Either way it boils down though, negligence or religious fundamentalism, I do think it quite clear...the hospital staff in question killed that poor woman. If she had proper care from the beginning she'd be alive today.

 

[lunakilo]

Well, seeing as nobody's made such an argument, I don't see why you'd mention it.

That just seem to me to be what most people are implying.

Sorry, I misspelled.

Belie:
to show to be false; contradict: His trembling hands belied his calm voice.

Ahhh.

But I still don't understand which conclusion of mine the quotes contradict...

Quote:
Irish law allows (as far as I know) terminating a pregnancy if the mothers life is in danger.
The doctors must not have thought her life was in danger, I assume they would have given her an abortion if they thought that would have saved her.
On what grounds? The quote that "there's nothing we can do if the fetus has a heartbeat?" Or perhaps "This is a Catholic country?"

...that the law allows terminating a pregnancy if the mothers life is in danger, that the doctors did not believe her life to be in danger or my assumption that the doctors would have given her and abortion if they thought that would have saved her?

 

[Storm]

That just seem to me to be what most people are implying.


Ahhh.

But I still don't understand which conclusion of mine the quotes contradict...



...that the law allows terminating a pregnancy if the mothers life is in danger, that the doctors did not believe her life to be in danger or my assumption that the doctors would have given her and abortion if they thought that would have saved her?

She was told that an abortion was out of the question. That directly contradicts the assumption that one would have been performed under ANY circumstance.

As for the law, Penguin seems to be most informed, and claims there's no exemption to the ban even when the mother's life is at risk.

 

[lunakilo]

I've never said anything about it being "religious fanaticism". There is speculation about it, of course, because of the statements she was told repeatedly when she asked for her pregnancy to be terminated. I've maintained from my beginning posts that the investigations are warranted to find out what really happened here. Either way it boils down though, negligence or religious fundamentalism, I do think it quite clear...the hospital staff in question killed that poor woman. If she had proper care from the beginning she'd be alive today.

Negligence or religious fundamentalism. And quite possibly both.

My point is that I don't know what tests were done at the hospital, I don't know what reasons the doctors had for not thinking the womans life was in danger and until I do know that I won't assume neither negligence not religious fundamentalism.

Sometimes people die. Doctors are supposed to try to prevent that, but it is not always possible.

 

[lunakilo]

She was told that an abortion was out of the question. That directly contradicts the assumption that one would have been performed under ANY circumstance.

As for the law, Penguin seems to be most informed, and claims there's no exemption to the ban even when the mother's life is at risk.

I can't claim to know the practise of abortion in Ireland when it comes to saving the life of the mother, I can only google and see that it is allowed according to the law in order to save the life of the mother.
Possibly this never happens. If Penguin says so then let us assume that.

If that is indeed the case, then that is very wrong in my opinion.

But again why is this case so special then?
I would assume that other women have been denied abortion on the same grounds. Have others died too?

If so how/how many?
If not, what would be the argument that doctors should have known this miscarriage would end so tragicly?

 

[Storm]

I can't claim to know the practise of abortion in Ireland when it comes to saving the life of the mother, I can only google and see that it is allowed according to the law in order to save the life of the mother.
Possibly this never happens. If Penguinsays so then let us assume that.

If that is indeed the case, then that is very wrong in my opinion.
But again why is this case so special then?
I would assume that other women have been denied abortion on the same grounds. Have others died too?

If so how/how many?
If not, what would be the argument that doctors should have known this miscarriage would end so tragicly?

Why is it special? It's special because it puts a face on the victims of these laws. It wasn't so long ago here in the US that a Republican official denied that abortion was ever medically necessary in the modern world. This story is important because such views mean more innocent, preventable deaths, and people who hold them need to have their noses rubbed in reality. Declaring women "collateral damage" acceptable to ideological agenda is absolutely intolerable.

 

[lunakilo]

I agree with you.

Thank you, I don't feel so lonesome now

It is not as clear as some say. It appears possible that the offensive religious
remarks were made independently of the underlying cause of erroneous medical assessment.

Again, I agree.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yeah, this never happens with modern medicine.

Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital

Her husband, Praveen Halappanavar (34), an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, says she asked several times over a three-day period that the pregnancy be terminated. He says that, having been told she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.
​

Isn't the movement supposed to be "pro-LIFE?"

I'm the first to admit that logical fallacies are not necessarily fallacies of reason or that they can't be part of a critical argument, including the above type of fallacy (simply called "appeal to emotion", or divided into different types of fallacies, such as "argument from outrage" or argumentum ad misericordiam or argumentum ad odium or "argument from pit", or some other English or Latin term used to describe a rhetorical technique which plays on emotion, not logic or reason).

However, the use of appeals to emotions is only considered valid when it is a supporting premise. The above isn't.

This wouldn't be much of an issue were it not for the sad fact that political and social issues have generally been dominated by appeals to irrational reactions. There was a thread, if memory serves, some time ago which began with a picture of a fetus and something to the effect of "how can you kill this" or "how is this not human" or some such nonsense. Generalization from a single example, especially if it is fraught with loaded terms and appeals to emotion, don't contribute to debates on social reforms. They do the opposite. It's bad enough that politicans, news media, corporations, etc., constantly bombard us with such rhetorical strategies. But the internet (among other things) is perhaps the closest thing possible to a "voice of the people". Why use it to employ the same rhetorical devices which are already so pervasive?