Waiting for the finding: there is no record of a request for a termination.

It will be interesting to discover what the medical records say about medical advice given, options and expected outcomes.

The HIQA investigation is an entirely unsuited legally speaking to this type of individual investigation. Sections 8 & 9 of the Health Act 2007 make this apparent. HIQA properly addresses standards, not medico-legal issues. It fails to address Praveen’s rights to a proper inquiry. The HIQA investigation is a case of fitting a square peg into a round hole.

Personally, I have enormous sympathy for the clinicians involved. There is absolutely no indication that there was medical negligence or failure of standards. The reality is that bad law prevented potential life saving medical intervention. The Eight Amendment is to blame. We need a Commission of Investigation or a Public Tribunal of Inquiry. Because of unity of time, place, events, personnel, short elapse of time, accessibility of witnesses, either a Commission or a Tribunal would take very little time. The McCracken Tribunal Inquiry took six weeks.

This State failed Savita and Praveen. We need to do everything possible to make some limited reparation for bad law and in humane law. Let us do right and not criticise Praveen or his solicitor. Let us be sensitive to his needs because addressing these will help necessary legal reform. There is still opportunity for us to pressure our politicians to do what is right and decent.

It’s an awful pity the doctors did not cooperate with savita.

@ Kim, the appalling vista that the clinicians were facing is that had the induced delivery or later performed a D&C and did so before the foetal heart beat had stopped, even though the foetus was expiring, they and anyone complicit would have committed a very serious criminal offence, formerly a felony, and this is largely due to the legal effect of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, Eight Amendment, which I keep referring to.

You are so right to feel angry and healthcare in Ireland is far from perfect but in this instance and looking at the precise time line described by Kitty Holland in today’s Irish Times, the clinicians were legally prevented by bad law from intervening with appropriate and life saving medical treatment. I would not be surprised if the clinicians, even though following the law, must no feel tortured by what happened. They administered antibiotics but otherwise had to standby, hoping for the foetal heart beat to stop as soon as possible.

Our bad law resulted from extreme Roman Catholic fundamentalist pinning the government in 1983 to put a Fianna Fáil wording to A Referendum and the electorate were led by the misinformation political parties and inspired by the RC Church to pass a dangerously defective Constitutional Amendment. Some lawyers warned of the danger of equating the life of a pregnant woman and a foetus. It could cause a stalemate, a treatment paralysis and it did. In some uncommon cases it is actually a choice between favouring the woman’s life and the life of the foetus. That’s a terrible dilemma but I make no apology for favouring the woman’s life in such a situation.

Some clinicians take a fudged approach. They will not make too much effort to detect a foetal heart beat if the foetus is certain to expire but they have to be confident that no hard line pro-lifer will make allegations afterwards. It’s a tricky situation. Get it wrong and the clinician is facing terrible consequences. If they can’t intervene, it’s usually unclear if the woman would have survived and it helps no one to make a fuss.

Savita’s case was more transparent than most, Savita and Praveen understood what was happening, the miscarriage had happened, Savita wanted and needed an induction but the clinicians faced with the fact that there was still a foetal heart beat present were legally powerless to intervene. A real nightmare!

As a retired lawyer, I think that it was bad law and not bad medicine or bad medical practice which is to blame. The 2004 Medical Guidelines do not and cannot clear up the dilemma. There is much talk of legislation. If kept narrowly within the X case, temporary and emergency legislation may help but only a Constuitutional Referendum repealing Article 40.3.3 will provide a legally effective solution. Unfortunately, this would represent too much loss of face for most politicians and for the Roman Catholic Church. I receive extremely abusive emails from extreme pro-lifers when I raise this. It is too raw a nerve. If occasionally women die so as to maintain a foetus, that is fine for the extremists. They are so focused on the foetus, they seem only to see the woman as a mere incubator. A woman should be prioritised over her foetus but this is unacceptable to most pro-lifers who will not accept the reality that sometimes a choice has to be made. Dogma prevails over medical reality.

Did I hear right today when it was said that hers was the first maternal death in 17 years in UCHG?

Fair play,
Has anyone thought about their trauma in all of this ?

So they bloody well ought to! That is the greatest non -joke of this event. How gracious of them . What do they want ? A bloody medal for saying they will co-operate? God Allmighty lok down on us. Such twerps.

The case notes don’t refer to any request for abortion. Case notes tend to be quite comprehensive and contemporaneous documents, almost impossible to redact or alter.
It is possible, therefore, that no such requests (for an abortion) were made at the time. I sympathise with Mr. Halappanar for the loss of his wife, but it would be unfortunate if he let his anger at her death cause him to make accusations that later don’t stand up to scrutiny.
For the safety of other women in UCHG, he must assist the private clinical enquiries by HIQA & HSE. If he wants a sworn enquiry he can make a statement to Án Garda Síochána and they can investigate any criminal charges. A criminal court case would be public and sworn, but it could take months to be heard. A civil case would be the same, but costly for him if the HSE is found not negligent. Either way, creating a new public sworn tribunal is not likely. It will be long, costly and every staff-member involved will be lawyered-up. That will not protect any other woman at the hospital.

My earlier comment was written in anger . I apologise. The members of Roscommon and Galway University Groups have no right to issue such a statement. It is part of their job to co-operate. How dare they to be so condescending? They cannot say that they shall co-operate. Simply , they are obliged to do so. Such comments do not help. Note YOU ARE OBLIGED TO HELP . Do you not understand that ,stupids

‘Asked’ sorry!

Another Savita story? Really??
What happened was tragic, no doubt. I just see about 5-6 Savita stories on here a day.

Zero confidence in Irish doctors, Irish nurses who have kowtow before the bishops crozier first and foremost