[quote=“artfoley, post: 766850, member: 179”]no system fails juhy, people do. in respect of the catholic country comment, it was totally inappropriate,; there are a million other ways to explain something to a patient withiout using a phrase like that which could be so misconstrued as that.
she may have been saved if she had have been granted an abortion when she asked for it but it would have been illegal. that sais, the IMC guidelines are woefully inadequate
also, IMHO, a big brouhaha has been made about the lack of clarity in the law so as people will avoid being struck off not because it was applicable to these facts
I disagree. Human nature dictates that performance drops under stress and duress. A nurse knows she has to do something and is called away to a more immediate need and forgets. A sample gets put in the wrong bottle because the right one isn’t at hand. A message or part of a previous doctor’s diagnosis is omitted in a summary. When small human failures combine to tragic effect, I’d call it a system failure. I would imagine this is the case in every hospital in the country.
I believe the brouhaha the aftereffect of a tragic example of just how clear the law is. A woman was denied a termination when her baby had no chance of life. It was a contributary factor in her death. It’s over 20 years since the courts asked the government to legislate for this and nothing has been done. That’s systemic failure right there.
[SIZE=12px]it accelerated at an unprecedented rate/quote][/SIZE] [SIZE=12px]Hardly.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=3]Glas, if, her not having her vital signs taken between 7.35pm and 6.30am was such a huge factor in her death, I think it’s safe to say it accelerated at an alarming rate. This is backed up by doctors from the inquest.[/SIZE]
I have always been pro-choice. I don’t see aborting a 6 week old foetus that is unwanted or cannot be cared for as a bad thing but I can understand why people, religious or not, would disagree. I guess I am just a very fair minded individual.
The irony of this debate is that the new legislation if introduced will make no difference to any woman in a Savita-type situation in the future. Legislation which would protect the health as opposed to the life of the mother would be necessary for that to happen. That would take a constitutional amendment.
As far as I can see, under the constitution of this state, only a pregnant mother is denied the right to medical treatment which will protect her health.
[quote=“Sidney, post: 767487, member: 183”]
As far as I can see, under the constitution of this state, only a pregnant mother is denied the right to medical treatment which will protect her health.[/quote]
And poor people.
I would be anti-abortion but pro-choice. As in if it was my sperm I wouldn’t contemplate it, but if it someone else wants to, then what the fuck do I care.
There is a direct link to the legalisation of abortion in the US of A and the dramatic fall off in crime in the 1990’s circa 20 years later.
[quote=“Sidney, post: 767487, member: 183”]The irony of this debate is that the new legislation if introduced will make no difference to any woman in a Savita-type situation in the future. Legislation which would protect the health as opposed to the life of the mother would be necessary for that to happen. That would take a constitutional amendment.
As far as I can see, under the constitution of this state, only a pregnant mother is denied the right to medical treatment which will protect her health.[/quote]
I know it’s not explicit in the act but i heard a doctor talking on the radio about the effect the new law would have in protecting medical staff. As such, a doctor would have the security to make the call that, for example, an unviable foetus could be terminated on the grounds that iy might present future risk to the mother’s life (a la savita) and thus be deemed a medical emergency.
well considering the medical team tending savita didnt think that she was at risk so much that they didnt monitor her regularly or read the notes or communicate with each other to present exactly what was going on with her, i’m amazed that a doctor can read the heads of a bill and come to this conclusion. given that a termination wouldnt have qualified under the heads of the bill at the time savita asked for one, but would have qualified at the time when she was succumbing to severe sepsis at which point it was too late
[FONT=sans-serif]Head 2 Risk of loss of life from physical illness, not being a risk of self destruction[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]Provide that[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif It is not an offence to carry out a medical procedure, in accordance with this head, in the[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]course of which or as a result of which unborn human life is ended, where –[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif that procedure is carried out by a registered medical practitioner at an appropriate[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]location, and[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif two medical practitioners, have, in accordance with this head, jointly certified in good[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]faith that –[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the pregnant woman’s life other[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]than by way of self-destruction, and[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]in their reasonable opinion this risk can be averted only by that medical[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]procedure.[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif One of the two medical practitioners referred to in[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]paragraph (b)[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]of[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]subhead (1)[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]shall be[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]an obstetrician/gynaecologist, who must be employed at that location, and one shall be a[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]medical practitioner who is registered on the Specialist Division of the register of medical[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]practitioners established under section 43(2)(b) of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 under[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]a relevant specialty.[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif (a) In forming their opinion, at least one of the two medical practitioners referred to in[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]paragraph (b) of subhead (1) shall consult with the pregnant woman’s general practitioner[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]where practicable.[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif In forming the aforesaid opinion both medical practitioners should examine the woman.[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif Where two medical practitioners referred to in[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]subhead (2)[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]have jointly certified an[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]opinion referred to in[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]paragaph (b)[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]of[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]subhead (1)[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif], the certifying obstetrician/gynaecologist[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]referred to in subhead (2) shall forward the certificate to a location referred to in paragraph[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif of subhead (1) and shall make arrangements for carrying out the procedure at that[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]location.[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif It will always be a matter for the patient to decide if she wishes to proceed with a[/FONT]
termination following a decision that it is permissible under this Act
[quote=“artfoley, post: 767540, member: 179”]well considering the medical team tending savita didnt think that she was at risk so much that they didnt monitor her regularly or read the notes or communicate with each other to present exactly what was going on with her, i’m amazed that a doctor can read the heads of a bill and come to this conclusion. given that a termination wouldnt have qualified under the heads of the bill at the time savita asked for one, but would have qualified at the time when she was succumbing to severe sepsis at which point it was too late
[FONT=sans-serif]Head 2 Risk of loss of life from physical illness, not being a risk of self destruction[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]Provide that[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif It is not an offence to carry out a medical procedure, in accordance with this head, in the[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]course of which or as a result of which unborn human life is ended, where –[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif that procedure is carried out by a registered medical practitioner at an appropriate[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]location, and[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif two medical practitioners, have, in accordance with this head, jointly certified in good[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]faith that –[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the pregnant woman’s life other[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]than by way of self-destruction, and[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]in their reasonable opinion this risk can be averted only by that medical[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]procedure.[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif One of the two medical practitioners referred to in[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]paragraph (b)[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]of[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]subhead (1)[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]shall be[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]an obstetrician/gynaecologist, who must be employed at that location, and one shall be a[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]medical practitioner who is registered on the Specialist Division of the register of medical[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]practitioners established under section 43(2)(b) of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 under[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]a relevant specialty.[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif (a) In forming their opinion, at least one of the two medical practitioners referred to in[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]paragraph (b) of subhead (1) shall consult with the pregnant woman’s general practitioner[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]where practicable.[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif In forming the aforesaid opinion both medical practitioners should examine the woman.[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif Where two medical practitioners referred to in[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]subhead (2)[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]have jointly certified an[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]opinion referred to in[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]paragaph (b)[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]of[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]subhead (1)[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif], the certifying obstetrician/gynaecologist[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]referred to in subhead (2) shall forward the certificate to a location referred to in paragraph[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif of subhead (1) and shall make arrangements for carrying out the procedure at that[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]location.[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif It will always be a matter for the patient to decide if she wishes to proceed with a[/FONT]
termination following a decision that it is permissible under this Act[/quote]
Copying and pasting legal jargon, a new low for fooley
Yet again showing what an intellectual pigmy you are. I would have thought that you should have a massive brain given the amount of oxygen you could fuel it with given the size of your hooter
Its actually ones of the heads of the bill juhy was referring to. I would expect anyone of at least average intelligence to be able to read a bill.
[quote=“artfoley, post: 767577, member: 179”]Yet again showing what an intellectual pigmy you are. I would have thought that you should have a massive brain given the amount of oxygen you could fuel it with given the size of your hooter
Its actually ones of the heads of the bill juhy was referring to. I would expect anyone of at least average intelligence to be able to read a bill.[/quote]
Copying the whole thing onto here is lazy. I’d expect someone of your supposed legal stature to be able to take out the key points and explain them properly. A monkey could do what you’ve just done.
I don’t mean to sidetrack the conversation bit if you’re going to pass yourself off as some kind of legal expert as you so often do then you’re failing badly. The posters of TFK deserve better.
[quote=“Mac, post: 767578, member: 109”]Copying the whole thing onto here is lazy. I’d expect someone of your supposed legal stature to be able to take out the key points and explain them properly. A monkey could do what you’ve just done.
I don’t mean to sidetrack the conversation bit if you’re going to pass yourself off as some kind of legal expert as you so often do then you’re failing badly. The posters of TFK deserve better.[/quote]
If youre on about the posters of tfk deserving better then you should take a long look in the mirror and offer something than the pathetic one liners youve been doling out, sidelining each thread that has the misfortune of you joining it.
And if you read my post properly instead of throwing lazy one liners you will see that I have laid out the position and how it wouldnt have nade fuck all difference in the savita case, then I threw up the pertinent section of the heads of thd bill.
[quote=“artfoley, post: 767579, member: 179”]If youre on about the posters of tfk deserving better then you should take a long look in the mirror and offer something than the pathetic one liners youve been doling out, sidelining each thread that has the misfortune of you joining it.
And if you read my post properly instead of throwing lazy one liners you will see that I have laid out the position and how it wouldnt have nade fuck all difference in the savita case, then I threw up the pertinent section of the heads of thd bill.[/quote]
I made random people I never met and never will meet on here a fortune last week. Anyway, get back to your copying and pasting.
[quote=“artfoley, post: 767540, member: 179”]well considering the medical team tending savita didnt think that she was at risk so much that they didnt monitor her regularly or read the notes or communicate with each other to present exactly what was going on with her, i’m amazed that a doctor can read the heads of a bill and come to this conclusion. given that a termination wouldnt have qualified under the heads of the bill at the time savita asked for one, but would have qualified at the time when she was succumbing to severe sepsis at which point it was too late
[FONT=sans-serif]Head 2 Risk of loss of life from physical illness, not being a risk of self destruction[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]Provide that[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif It is not an offence to carry out a medical procedure, in accordance with this head, in the[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]course of which or as a result of which unborn human life is ended, where –[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif that procedure is carried out by a registered medical practitioner at an appropriate[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]location, and[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif two medical practitioners, have, in accordance with this head, jointly certified in good[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]faith that –[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]there is a real and substantial risk of loss of the pregnant woman’s life other[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]than by way of self-destruction, and[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]in their reasonable opinion this risk can be averted only by that medical[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]procedure.[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif One of the two medical practitioners referred to in[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]paragraph (b)[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]of[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]subhead (1)[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]shall be[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]an obstetrician/gynaecologist, who must be employed at that location, and one shall be a[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]medical practitioner who is registered on the Specialist Division of the register of medical[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]practitioners established under section 43(2)(b) of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 under[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]a relevant specialty.[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif (a) In forming their opinion, at least one of the two medical practitioners referred to in[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]paragraph (b) of subhead (1) shall consult with the pregnant woman’s general practitioner[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]where practicable.[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif In forming the aforesaid opinion both medical practitioners should examine the woman.[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif Where two medical practitioners referred to in[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]subhead (2)[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]have jointly certified an[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]opinion referred to in[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]paragaph (b)[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]of[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]subhead (1)[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif], the certifying obstetrician/gynaecologist[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]referred to in subhead (2) shall forward the certificate to a location referred to in paragraph[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif of subhead (1) and shall make arrangements for carrying out the procedure at that[/FONT]
[FONT=sans-serif]location.[/FONT] FONT=sans-serif It will always be a matter for the patient to decide if she wishes to proceed with a[/FONT]
termination following a decision that it is permissible under this Act[/quote]
Not sure what your buzz is art. I presume you’re carrying on our discussion from last night. What i posted was in reference to sid’s question. I understand that you’ve got the legal horn for this bill and are loving its intricacies. I, however, was merely passing on the opinions of a doctor. The opinions of most medical professionals i’ve heard speak of it are quite positive and they believe it might afford them some more protection. While this may have been spurred on by the savita case, it doesn’t actually have any bearing on the exact legislation. If there’s a legacy of that terrible tragedy, it may be that doctors can make that decision with less thought of legal ramifications and more on the condition of the mother.