And doctors have to respect "do not resuscitate" orders even when it is a young person BECAUSE THAT IS THEIR DECISION Every so often things go wrong and we have to make a choice - lose one or lose both In this instance the archaic law forced the wrong decision
It's not always a 100% certainty that the baby will die. I don't know the details of this exact situation, but they may have thought that the baby had a decent chance of surviving, and felt it unethical to kill human life, even though it may have been known that abortion would increase the chances of survival for the mother by a greater margin than the baby had of surviving. Again, I do not know the details of the situation, but couldn't the woman have called one of her family members to get an outside doctor to come to the hospital? This was a Catholic hospital. This woman should have known what type of treatment to expect and not to expect the moment she walked through the doors. If you go to a hospital run by Jehovah's Witnesses, don't be expecting any blood transfusions. "The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible." Eric Hoffer
I would not be against an abortion if it greatly enhanced the mother's survival, and the fetus did not have much of a chance of surviving. But I defend a doctor's right to not kill a human life, even one that has a low chance of survival. It's really like asking whether you would be willing to kill one innocent person to save the lives of two others. And consider this: Abortionists claim that 2 months of the woman's convenience is more important than the entire lifetime of her fetus. So would it not be fair for me to submit that the doctor's right not to steal away the few days of remaining life the fetus had left to live was more important than the mother's life?
And your medical qualifications are?? Pure speculation - just how would they determine that? And who gives them the right to decide for her what risks she should take? There are no sureties in medicine and she may have survived the death of the foetus (Google mummified foetus or foetus papyraceous) If you think that people will act that way you are mistaken - they were probably reassured that everything would be alright Was it? But even Catholic hospitals WILL perform abortions under circumstances like this - at least they will here where we have not denied that women die in childbirth like has been denied in Ireland
Catholic hospital or not, the only ones here who deserve the title of pro-death where the doctors whose gross negligence and willing inaction directly caused the death of the mother. They ought to be stripped of their medical licenses. You don't wax philosophical when someone's life is at stake, and these doctors chose bull(*)(*)(*)(*) ideology over a living breathing person. The fact that you cannot see this, that you're defending what happened, that you seem to agree with these doctors that the partial chance of a fetus surviving is more important than the mother's life, how can you seriously do that? Do you call yourself pro-life? If you do, stop now.
The hospital is run by the HSE, a government body. It wasn't the Bon Secours it wasn't Aut Even, the ethos and ethics are not the question legal uncertainty about in what circumstances an abortion can be performed and the degree of risk necessary are to blame. It is wrong to put this on the shoulders of a doctor who was trying his best to treat his patient while not breaking the law.
Not really, Bowerbird. The person would die from lack of blood due to bleeding, the stabbing was a contributory factor. It is even wise to suggest that had the person been either found or treated for said stab wound earlier, that he or she would not have bled to death. Now onto the woman who bled to death because she either did not go the the emergency room soon enough or because of the lack of medical treatment. Had either taken place, maybe she would be alive today. My point is, all of us can assume all day long but without all of the particulars, we can only guess as to what really caused the hemorrhaging that lead to her and the child's death. To surmise that it was because of her not receiving an abortion on demand or as she requested is as irresponsible. Maybe the decedent has a preexisting medical condition that should have precluded her from becoming pregnant. Has anyone even given that any thought or has the pro-abortion crowd yet again rushed to judgement in order to validate their support of abortion? This post is in response to both raytri and Bowerbird.
When commenting on the death of a woman its usually a good idea to have actually bothered to find out what killed her. She didn't bleed out, She was left for three days with an open cervix as she miscarried a wanted baby, she caught an infection and died. If she had been given an abortion when she first asked, when it had become clear that there was no hope for the baby, she would not have been left at high risk of infection for a further two days, and might not have died.
ryanm, I am aware of why the woman died but it seems to be that others are not aware of what killed. The opening discussion leads people to believe that they woman died because she was denied an abortion which is not the case at all. If you are referring to my responses to others, I am responding directly to the accusation(s) levied and not much else.
If she had not been left for three days with an open cervix she might not have contracted an infection and may not have died. To leave a woman in agony for three days, increasing her risk of complications, to prolong the life of an already doomed fetus is immoral. If she had been given an abortion, when she asked, to end a pregnancy that was already doomed she might not have died. The Master of the Rotunda, the Irish Institute for Obstetricians and Gynecologists, The Professor of Emergency Medicine at TCD, The Professor of Obstetrics at NUIG (Also former director of Maternity unit in which Savita died) and many more senior Medics are all calling for legislative clarity. Describing the area as a quagmire, legal limbo and a sword of damocles hanging over the heads of doctors. The Supreme court has repeatedly called for legislation, berating the government for failing to give effect to Irish women's constitutional right. Doctors should not fear that giving women the care they need will condemn them to life in prison.
The baby would have died anyhow. The woman was having a miscarriage. Forcing a person to die so a child that won't even survive until childbirth can live in pain for a few more hours is wrong. And yes, the child was in pain. It's known that children can feel pain in the womb, and the vast majority of miscarriages are very painful. So, you are saying the child, who will die no matter what, and the mother, who will die unless she is given an abortion, should both suffer just to give you the warm fuzzy feeling you get when you know an abortion did not take place. You are scum.
Well don't come to Queensland - under our laws ANY action that leads to death is manslaughter/murder. There was a case here a while back of a woman who had been bashed by her husband in a rural community the air ambulance crashed on take off killing all on board and he was held for manslaughter as she died. It was deemed that she would not have been on board except for the bashing that he gave her. Are we talking about the same case here? And mate - 5 years working in a catholic ICU specialising in maternal emergencies and I think I can speculate more accurately than most on this board
The case involving Savita has not been fully investigated yet. Though for some reason people who support abortion have jumped on this case to justify abortion, before all the facts have been revealed.
