TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 18 °C Wednesday 19 June, 2013

Savita tragedy continues to attract international attention

“Ireland Murders Pregnant Indian Dentist.”

A vigil for Savita in Dublin last night.
A vigil for Savita in Dublin last night.
Image: Julien Behal/PA Wire/Press Association Images

THE HEADLINE ON the main story on the India Times website today reads, “Ireland Murders Pregnant Indian Dentist”.

While politicians here wait for the completion of two investigations, the international media has come to it’s own conclusions about what happened in University Hospital Galway last month after Savita Halappanavar, who was 17 weeks pregnant, presented with back-ache.

Sky News led its lunchtime broadcast with the developing story yesterday, while British and Australian newspapers have filed numerous pieces on the events. Today, the coverage continued.

The Hindu has reported that Indian authorities have expressed “concern” over the circumstances of the dentist’s death but said they would await the results of the investigations before taking the matter further.

“We deeply regret the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar. The death of an India national in such circumstances is a matter of concern. Our embassy in Dublin is following the matter closely,” official spokesperson in the Ministry of External Affairs, Syed Akbaruddin said.

Many American websites have covered Savita’s death using news wire Associated Press, but Fox News has also run an opinion piece by Dr Manny Alvarez who argues that “bureaucracy killed a woman”.

We understand that the Irish authorities have initiated two inquiries. We are awaiting the results of these inquiries and we will take it from there.

“I am not going to get into the debate of legalized abortion or not,” he says. “However, I am going to get into a practical discussion of how dangerous it is when common sense fails to exist and bureaucratic rules interfere with the practice of medicine.”

Jezebel Pic

This is the sole image used to accompany Jezebel’s piece: Woman Denied Abortion Dies In Agony at Hospital.

And Laura Beck writes:

So awful, and yet another painful reminder of the many reasons women must have access to proper medical care. It appears this isn’t totally the work of neglectful hospital, the Irish government is to blame here, as well. In 1992, the Irish Supreme Court legalized abortion in cases where the mother’s life is threatened, but 20 years later the Irish Republic has failed to put the law into effect.

The same website picked up on another issue raised in the Dáil this week – and covered by TheJournal.ie – that of the scandal of symphysiotomy.

Author Katie J.M. Baker said she had never even heard of the procedure, which involves a woman’s pelvis being broken on purpose during labour.

The survivors met to see the first screening of a documentary about the practice, which compares it to methods used in Kenyan hospitals today. But based on Savita Halappanavar’s tragic story — she was denied a medical termination in an Irish hospital even though she was miscarrying and in severe pain, and later died — it’s not like things have gotten all that much better for modern-day Irish women, either.

TIME Magazine discusses the coincidence that an expert group’s report into the ABC judgement by the European Court of Justice, which found a disparity between the legal theory and actual implementation of Ireland’s abortion status, delivered its report the night before Savita’s death was made public.

“The timing of the report’s publication and Halappanavar’s death are entirely coincidental but her death has thrust an already explosive issue into the forefront of Irish political debate,” writes Sorcha Pollack.

Global activism website Avaaz.org says that doctors “probably could have saved this young woman’s life” and then asks, “So why didn’t they?”

If this were a cut and dry case of medical negligence, that would be tragic enough. But Savita’s ordeal and needless death reveals a wider disgrace: the shocking, inhumane treatment of pregnant women under Irish law.

Al Jazeera Savita

Al Jazeera reporter Laurence Lee points out that the above headline is incorrect as Savita was not a Mum-to-Be because she had lost her baby already when she was admitted. He continued:

What the hospital seems to have done is to make a decision to put the woman’s life in danger to protect the rights of a foetus that had no chance of surviving.

He adds that Ireland is now under pressure to address the contradictions in policy.

Back closer to home, the Guardian has published a number of articles on the tragedy.

Galway native Emer O’Toole writes:

To her family, I want to say: I am ashamed, I am culpable, and I am sorry. For every letter to my local politician I didn’t write, for every protest I didn’t join, for keeping quiet about abortion rights in the company of conservative relations and friends, for becoming complacent, for thinking that Ireland was changing, for not working hard enough to secure that change, for failing to create a society in which your wife, your daughter, your sister was able to access the care that she needed: I am sorry. You must think that we are barbarians.

In the Daily Telegraph, Sally Peck notes that the High Court ignored the religious beliefs of a Jehovah’s Witness by overruling her signed, written instruction refusing a blood transfusion that would save her life. “So why on earth did they deny Mrs Halappanavar life-saving treatment?” she asked.

Despite what you read in the anti-abortion press, terminating a pregnancy is not purely a cleanup operation after a messy drunken night out; sometimes doctors must make the difficult choice between the life of a mother and baby. And in that case, it is morally inexcusable, whatever your beliefs, not to prioritise the life that already exists.

Ireland must act immediately to follow the 2009 European court ruling, before more women needlessly die in the name of religion.

Political and cultural magazine, the News Statesman, points to the misinformation being disseminated in Ireland.

…the reported facts suggest that Ireland’s abortion law, and its Catholic culture, were the context within which these horrific events unfolded. As recently as September, an “international symposium” meeting in Dublin declared that “direct abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a woman”, though it added, confusingly, that “legitimate medical treatment” that resulted in pregnancy termination didn’t count as such. The statement claimed that “misinformation abounds in public debate” around this issue. But if it is misinformation, Savita’s death suggests that it isn’t just the public that is misinformed. Her doctors, too, appear to be labouring under the same delusion.

  • Share on Facebook
  • Email this article
  •  

Read next:

Comments (83 Comments)

  • So who’s protesting Saturday?

    Reply
    • Did you know that White is the Hindu colour for mourning?
      We are asking that if you can, please wear white, to any of the vigils/marches/protests you are attending this weekend.

      Reply
    • Before this thread like all the others gets out of hand, can I jump in here and suggest people don’t feed the trolls out of respect of the woman and the woman’s family.
      Live and let live folks.

      Reply
    • its starting at 4pm at garden of rememberance if anybody’s wondering

      Reply
    • http://www.irishchoicenetwork.com/1/post/2012/11/please-wear-white-protest-and-march-update.html

      Friday:

      Cork

      http://corkfeminista.com/

      Pprotest planned for Friday 16th November at 1pm on Daunt Square. Both events are being organized in conjunction with the Cork Women’s Right to Choose and the Pro Choice Cork Alliance.

      Saturday

      Limerick

      https://www.facebook.com/events/172462832893678

      Limerick: PROTEST at Savita Halappanavar’s Death – Legislate for X Case Now
      Public event · Saturday 15:00 until 16:00

      O’Connell Street Limerick

      Galway

      https://www.facebook.com/events/111469712349997/

      andlelit Vigil for Savita
      Public event · By Galway Pro-Choice
      Saturday 17:00
      Eyre’s Square.

      Dublin

      https://www.facebook.com/events/243742145755096/

      No more tragedies. Legislate NOW.
      Public event · By Action On X
      Saturday 16:00

      From the Garden of Remembrance to the Dáil, where we will hold a candlelight vigil in conjunction with Galway Pro-Choice to grieve Savita’s unnecessary death

      London

      http://feministevents.blogspot.co.uk/

      The protest is again in solidarity with the Irish Pro-Choice Campaign and the women of Ireland who are denied their human rights to decide their own fates and end their pregnancies of their own free choosing. We must support abortion rights in Ireland, and protesting in London will help support movements across Ireland and help to raise money for vital organisations like Abortion Support Network, which helps to fund Irish women travelling to the UK for abortions.

      Time: 4pm Date: Saturday 15th November Location: Outside the Irish Embassy

      Reply
    • Protesting what? The Catholic Church and its influence here?

      The country was given that chance in 2011 and 84% of the population announced its support for them.

      Protesting anything else is just another Irish effort to shift the blame elsewhere.

      The most innocent nation on earth, the Irish would have you believe.

      Reply
    • John, please.. Give it a rest, you’ve made your point with your warped logic, at this point it’s bordering on disrespectful. Please. Stop repeating yourself and dragging it all off topic (it was requested of everyone yesterday, you just seem to have ignored it).

      Reply
    • Shanti, I’m not going to sit here quietly while a bunch of hypocritical, child abuser supporting Catholics come here and point the finger at the government or the people who elected them.

      Catholicism and its stranglehold over Ireland is who is to blame for this poor woman’s death , along with everyone who supports it, as almost 9/10 did last year.

      The anti-establishment crowd are once again taking a tragedy and using it to hammer a government they don’t like, while their parties are using it to score popularity points amongst the ignorant and hypocritical masses.

      The biggest mistake this family made was in moving to a theocracy whose church dictates what we can and cannot do in our lives and I hope that every supporter of that church is feeling the guilt for their part in this woman’s death.

      Except that they’re not, because apparently irish people are never to blame for anything they do.

      Reply
    • John I share your disdain for the church, and I get the point you are making, but at present we need legislation, and I would sincerely hope that in this day and age the church don’t have their grubby mits anywhere near it.

      There’s a time and a place for reminding people of what it means to tick catholic on the census when you are not, and it is in the year leading up to the next census. Your points here will have been forgotten by the time this comes around again. So lets try to stay relevant, when the time comes for the next census I will fully support your crusade to encourage people to really think about and consider what they put on the census, this just isn’t it.

      Reply
  • The TDs did not seem to give a Damn about it in April when thay voted to do nothing about the X Case http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail2012041900006?opendocument

    Reply
  • The government needs to legislate this right now! So much international criticism coming at the Irish that a decision must be made to ensure that no woman in this country must ever be put through the agony this woman suffered, and the terrible loss to her family, caused by 20 years of governmental cowardice towards this issue!

    Reply
    • Gareth, I am at a loss here. The Suprmeme Court clarified the law. Had the medicos intervened to save Savita ,how could they be held in breach of the law. The Supreme Court has determined the parameters. What is left that is unlawful. Is it a fact that legislation is really required. If the Supreme Cort declares the law to be one thing then what legislation is needed. If a Doctor is prosecuted , his/her defence is that it s/he is protected by the X case decision.

      Reply
    • It may sound like stating-the-bleeding-obvious in this case but until the government legislates as to who, when and in what exact circumstances a woman’s life is in danger (the degree of danger may be another issue to be determined) then it’s virtually impossible for a medic to make the call.

      Reply
    • Rory,
      On one of the articles yesterday Gavan (journal staff) came in and explained it all to Vincent Dolan. I think it was on the article about the vigils / protests? Might be worth reading it as it is confusing, but no. There was no legal framework to protect a doctor terminating that pregnancy.
      Bear in mind when you have an ectopic pregnancy they don’t abort, they wait until your Fallopian tube is about to pop and kill you, then do a laparotomy and cut off your tube and possibly remove your ovary too.. It’s not an abortion, it’s the “necessary medical treatment to save the mother that might kill the child”. In civilised countries they give you an abortion drug when they realise its ectopic so that you can keep your reproductive organs intact.

      Reply
    • I don’t know what the law says on this, but its quite obvious from the supreme court’s interpretation of it that common sense should be applied in making a call. I’m sure Savita’s case is not a unique. Miscarriage during pregnancies should have occurred in the past elsewhere in Ireland…only this case has brought this issue back into discussion. It’s a great failure on the part of the HSE in not educating its professionals on their obligations, and allowing them to excuse themselves under some pretext.

      Reply
  • I’m starting to find it hard to read the comments now surrounding this tragic loss of life.

    Where I understand that the comments surrounding “This is a catholic country” are horrendous in this day and age…I am struggling now to get a clear time-line in my head.

    Abortion is a word being thrown out in this whole incident…however, if the foetus had already been mis-carried and they were waiting for it, then a D&C is required, not an abortion. And it’s my understanding that this is what they were asking for? As in, not to wait for it to pass naturally?

    I am horrified at some of the international reactions though. Ireland Murders, Ireland is an extremist state…And some of the countries that are carrying these headlines have some of the worst histories in their approach to medical treatments and women in general!

    Reply
  • Point and fact…. Many of the laws that exist and have been legislated are outdated, ambigous and difficult to enforce. Instead of spending money on Ipads for TDs… Invest the money into reviewing and updating our laws.

    The progress of our country is reliant on us actively and constantly reviewing who we are, were we want to go and how do we get there.

    Reply
    • With the continuous developments in the medical field many procedures once normal are now seen as barbaric. Abortion advocates are swimming against the tide of history.

      Reply
    • And the abortion opposition is swimming against the tide of progress.

      Reply
    • bpdeasy 15/11/12 #

      So killing children is progress? How do you think that killing children is progress? That is what all these “rights” have brought us to.

      Reply
    • Dr_Palo 15/11/12 #

      The poor woman should not have died, the law needs to be appropriately changed/implemented. But we should avoid knee jerk change to uk levels of abortion. 200,000 abortions per year in the uk. Thats the population of cork. Per year. Im pro choice but I think those levels are equally extreme as this sad situation.

      Reply
    • We need better sex and relationship education from a young age. Preventing unwanted pregnancy will ALWAYS be better than abortion.

      Reply
    • Dr_Palo 16/11/12 #

      Just googled some more figures on the uk – there are roughly 250,000 miscarriages, 700,000 births, 200,000 abortions. Thats 1,150,000 pregnancies.

      40% of all pregnancies are unplanned. That suggests that almost half of unplanned pregnancies (460,000) result in abortion.

      The number of abortions in the uk I think is too high. The reason I believe this is because I believe that of the 700,000 births, very close to 100% are glad they didnt choose abortion whether they planned it or not.

      Reply
  • Does anyone know why this story wasn’t reported on until a couple of days ago?

    Reply
    • Niamh. 15/11/12 #

      I’m sure her husband wanted time to come to terms, as best he could, with what had happened and to bring his wife home to India before the media broke the story. Just my opinion, I’m not sure why the delay to be honest.

      Reply
  • mart_n 15/11/12 #

    Am I the only one that thinks headlines such as “Ireland Murders Pregnant Indian Dentist’ are grossly inappropriate and sensationalist? Especially considering no inquiry has been conducted yet?

    Bizarre headline imo. Almost as crazy as those that equate all abortions to murder. Senseless, illogical and completely unnecessary.

    Reply
    • Lazy sensationalist journalism geared to sell as many copies as possible and nothing else. Ignore it.

      Reply
    • Ultimately, as an Irish person I do feel that we, in our failure as a nation to deal with this topic, are responsible as a nation in this circumstance. I feel a measure of shame, as she was in the care of the state, and the state failed her…

      Reply
    • Having been in the position of having a doomed pregnancy and being faced with the options of staying here and ‘letting nature take its course’ (& hoping i didn’t develop any health complications) or travel to the Uk, I actually find this headline quite appropriate fwiw.

      Reply
  • Why didn’t the medical team intervene? Is it ok to let a woman die because of a lack of ‘clarity’?

    Reply
  • Aarum 15/11/12 #

    Ironically the pro life group past and present along with government past and present , have a guilty conscience now, they can red thumb all they want but that is fact

    Reply
  • It’s not misleading it’s true…

    On reflection I’m coming to suspect that… there’s no getting through to these ‘pro-life’ people.

    The archaric policy of the church over reproductive rights is a remnant of their attempts to “out breed” other religons and spread christianity.

    I deeply suspect that secretly they don’t care about this women or her baby. They’re just two less heathen Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Gays to them. Either that or their mindless followers of the churches agendas.

    Reply
    • How can anyone make an argument against you when you’ve already discarded your opposition as inhumane racists? I thought it was the pro-lifers that were supposed to be impossible ‘to get through to’. Every time I see this kind of prejudice, I lose more faith in rational discourse to ultimately settle this matter.

      Reply
    • Well said Robert.

      Reply
    • I haven’t decided anything… It’s well documented that it was the original goal of the catholic churches “guidence” on reproductive rights was to keep women at home engaged in unbridled childbirth and raising her kids to spread the word of god, and that ANYTHING that opposed that, working women, contraception, cesarian sections, abortion was to be virulantly opposed.

      Reply
    • Really? Why did it take ’til 1983 for abortion to be prohibited then? And I suppose the church stuffed the ballot boxes even then. Time to stop blaming the church and take some collective responsibility for our lack of legislation.

      Reply
    • Of course the Catholic Church don’t care about this woman, in their beliefs she’s now in Hell for eternity and the baby is in heaven completely alone.

      Reply
    • Because up until 1983 vigilante justice was enough… The church was above the law. It ran institutions that imprisioned unwed mothers and molested young boys and everyone was afraid to even ask questions let alone speak out..

      Reply
    • I thought the law prohibiting abortion came from the Offences against the person act 18–? (can’t remember which decade).
      It’s about a century before 1983 though.. Could someone please clarify?

      Reply
    • Ok, I clarified for myself.. It was 1861, and this was where the law prohibited any woman from “procuring a miscarriage” or anyone from helping her. This law remains on the statute books, even with the Supreme Court ruling in the X Case. This may explain doctors reservations about terminating the pregnancy when it was miscarrying anyway – they could have thought it would resolve itself (speculation). It certainly is a grey area as the law seems to contradict the Supreme Court ruling..

      Reply
  • Enough of priestcraft and Catholic dogma in our constitution. This is supposed to be republic but in fact its still a barbaric papist fiefdom.

    Reply
  • I want an all women committee to legislate on women’s wombs and gynaecological problems .tell the. Church to get lost ,the TDs to shut up because the only people who know what they are talking about are us women , tell the lads to go play ball if they know. Any thing about them?

    Reply
  • Article 40.3.3 is defective because it equates the life of the mother and the foetus and thus produces a legal stalemate when the interests of the mother and the foetus are divergent as happens in a small minority of cases but still happens. Clinicians need clear legal guidance and legal certainty that addressing a miscarriage of an expiring foetus will not risk an offence against the Offences against the Person Act. Article 4.3.3 needs to be rescinded by Referendum and a new and coherent Constitutional amendment passed. The existing Article does not distinguish between a viable and non viable foetus and it does not guide on the degree of risk to the life to the mother which may justify medical intervention of a nature which may accelerate the expiry of the foetus.

    We need a clear Constitutional amendment recognising the primacy of the right to life of the mother in all circumstances and then clear coherent legislation giving legal predictability and clarity to clinicians as to the precise scope of legally permissible medical intervention. In the admittedly rare cases of conflict of interest between the life of the mother or any risk to the life of the mother and the integrity of the foetus, I favour the interests and safety of the mother, even at the expense of the foetus.

    Reply
  • I think that after this incident, the Pro-Life group, needs to change it’s name. You are not pro-life. You just made sure someone’s life was taken from her. And you are trying to defend it…. sad !At least do the decent thing and find a different name.

    Reply
  • What a terrible mess successive governments have made! Get out now Enda. It’s time the decent people of Ireland got leaders they deserve.

    Reply
  • Sorry if this has been discussed elsewhere, but why was this story only made public yesterday?
    Why wasn’t it reported on earlier?

    Reply
    • From what I understand it is because after being given the lead the Irish Times chose to do some fact checking and research before they put it on their front page. Hope this helps.

      Reply
  • It a discrace the way this woman was treated !!!!!!!!!! U be ashamed to be irish !!!!!!! My Heart goes out to her husband and her family xxxxx about time this country got a major wake up call !!!!!!!

    Reply
  • That Emer O’Toole article is terrible. She has managed to take this tragic and horrible series of events and make it about herself. The quoted paragraph above is nauseating.

    This is a simple case of a doctor/ doctors not doing their job properly and it resulting in the awful loss of life. Whether the doctor in question acted because of his/her faith or because they were worried about the law is irrelevant. Abortion is not illegal in Ireland in a situation like this. Of course we need better legislation and hopefully this tragedy will achieve that but lets get a grip here. Ireland is one of the safest places in the world for pregnant women. Sadly this story has been seized upon by the more reactionary element of the pro-choice brigade and is unashamedly being used to push their agenda. They are displaying some of the dirty tactics that put most people off the pro-life brigade. Each sides agenda is preventing any meaningful discussion and is obscuring the facts.

    Another sorry element to this is the response from a lot of UK media. It fits in perfectly with their idea of Ireland as a backwater run by the church and that indian Times article is laughable. Everyone needs to take a deep breath.

    Reply
  • Here is a bit of backround on what has happened since 1983 referendum

    Article 40.3.3, guaranteeing explicitly the right to life of the ‘unborn’ with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, was put to the people by referendum in September 1983, and adopted by a large majority.

    Between 1986 and 1991 SPUC successfully took a series of cases against the Dublin Well Woman Center, Open Door Counselling and three students’ unions, to stop them providing women with information on where and how to obtain an abortion. However, a ruling of the European Court of Justice in 1991 suggested that agencies here of foreign abortion clinics, and these clinics themselves, might be entitled, under EC law, to give information in Ireland about the services they lawfully provided elsewhere in the Community

    In 1992, X case, The Supreme Court held that the right to life of the unborn had to be balanced against the mother’s right to life and that Article 40.3.3 permitted termination of a pregnancy in the State where there was a real and substantial threat to the mothers life, as distinct from her health, the threat of suicide constituted a threat to the mother’s life for this purpose. Also in 1992 new referendums confirmed freedom to travel for an abortion and the right to avail of abortion information, the third referendum dealing with abortion availability and ruling out the threat of suicide as grounds for an abortion in Ireland was rejected.

    The 1995 Regulation of Information Act was passed to lay down the conditions under which abortion information could be provided. It prohibited advertising and unsolicited distribution of literature relating to abortion among other things.

    In 1998 C case involved a the a 13 year old girl was raped and pregnant and suicidal. Her right to an abortion and travel where questioned. The Court found she was entitled to an abortion in Ireland by virtue of the Supreme Court judgement in the 1992 X Case. Since an abortion in this case would not be unconstitutional within this State then she could leave the State in order to have it.

    The baby O case in 2002 centered on the deportation of a pregnant woman who claimed her unborn child was a separate person and should be treated as so in Irish law, however it was found that Article 2 did not apply to the unborn. In the same year a referendum held to among other things reverse the 1992 X case ruling and provide for a law on abortion that could only be changed by further referendum was defeated.

    The 2007 D case involved the right to travel, a 17 year old pregnant girl in the care of the HSE. The foetus could not survive after birth, the girl wanted an abortion but refused to say she was suicidal to procure an abortion. The court found there was no law to stop her traveling and she did not need the courts permission to do so.

    Reply
  • It’s disguising that the hysteria is being capitalized by the pro abortion lobby.

    All the pop medical experts who seem to have read the coroners report already, although it has not been produced.

    Septicaemia occurs for several reasons, and the objective may have been to try to keep both patients alive.

    Let us see what the investigation reports, then we can proceed with any opinions and legislative changes.

    Reply
    • Reg 15/11/12 #

      I don’t there’s a pro abortion lobby Sean. What there is though is a pro choice lobby. Women and their families should have the right to choose. What right do you, the pro life lobby or the goverment have to deny them the right to choose what is right to them?

      Reply
    • Hey Reg,

      Pro-abortion/Pro-Choice versus Pro-life/Anti-Abortion. Same thing, just choosing the nicer label for it. Every citizen has their own opinion on it. I have mixed opinion myself. What would the foetus choose? I know its not simple and I’ll never be in the nightmare situation to have to make a decision.

      My comment was that we have to make informed – ie with the official report – opinions and not jump on the wave of hysteria.

      Reply
    • Reg 15/11/12 #

      No it’s not simple and I suppose that is why as a country we have failed to deal with this issue. However to say that the Pro-abortion/Pro-Choice is the same thing is not true. I would never consider myself as pro abortion but I do believe that woman should have the right to choose. It is a very personal decision for them and why should I or anyone else deny them that right?

      Reply
    • How were they trying to save both lives? The doctors told her that she was miscarrying, that the foetus was not going to live whatever they did.
      They left her with a dilated cervix for a couple of days – which is like leaving a gaping wound uncovered and untreated. I’d say that was an avenue for infection.. And why? Because the foetus’ heartbeat had not stopped *yet* and their hands were tied until it did.

      Reply
    • Shanti – Do you know the details of the case and are you involved in obstetric care? No? Then you are postulating from snippets of media information, the worse kind of posting. The cervix in labour is often dilated for prolonged periods of time and this is not like a gaping wound as you put it. Certainly a dilated cervix at 17 weeks gestation means certain death for the foetus, yes, but the team may have been waiting for the miscarriage to proceed naturally.

      Of interest, but ignored by the hystericals, septaemia occurs during natural miscarriage, natural birth, and surgical abortion. It can even occur from simply inserting an iv cannula.

      Please wait for the official report by people who actually know what they are talking about. And that includes me.

      Reply
    • ..that includes me, as in needs to wait (not know what I’m taking about)

      Reply
    • tom 15/11/12 #

      @ Sean

      very nicely said and I agree we should wait for the facts before jumping to concludions

      your wording is correct in saying Pro Abortion because that is the umbrella all the Pro Choice are under but rather uneasy with the word abortion.

      I’m disgusted with the way this tragic death of this woman and unborn child has been hijacked and turned into a campaign for pro choice.

      I”ll admit my personal view is more inclined towards legalised abortion but reading the comments it’s clear their are many who proclaim to support the right to choose don’t even understand the full impact.

      abortion referumdum and this unfortunate tragic death should not be considered to be linked especially without any facts.

      Reply
    • Fair point Sean. I was speaking based upon the details given, which I would presume were fact checked.

      The point about the cervix being wide open – it would be an avenue for infection, it would increase the risk, but as you correctly point out we do not know for sure – we have no idea when the sepsis set in or how.

      My point was that if the pregnancy was spontaneously aborting anyway, waiting around for the heartbeat to stop doesn’t seem to have been the best course of action. It literally left her “wide open”.

      Reply
    • Here is the opinion of someone with a background in the field. Seems to hold with what James Connolly was saying yesterday.. (James identified himself as working in the field).

      http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/

      Reply
  • Another day and another misleading headline in an international paper.

    Reply
  • No reference to the hundreds of thousands of babies murdered in abortion clinics in the UK each year.

    Reply
    • Why would the article reference the UK when the deceased died as a result of our governments failure to legislate?

      Reply
    • Barry 15/11/12 #

      Jason, incase you missed something the whole issue is about a women that was allowed to die because of this country’s failing to address situations like she experienced by allowing the women to have an abortion before everything went down hill.

      If you want stories about the UK and abortion then go look at UK news sites and search for them,

      Reply
    • This piece is referencing comments from the UK and the US – its what this thread is all about – the international reaction. We can then point fingers at abortion murders and gun murders carried out in the US and the UK!

      Reply
    • Misinformation of Irish media is constantly repeated in foreign media. They need to research the facts of the matter themselves. The details of the recent tragedy are as yet unknown and may have no actual relevance in the abortion debate, will this be front page priority if that turns out to be the case.

      Reply
    • Jason, a woman is dead because of groups that use false statements such as abortion being “never necessary to save a mothers life” campaigning to protect outdated and simply dangerous legislation. Nobody cares about what data is available on abortions in other nations, because this article is about international coverage of an incident that occurred in Ireland that has drawn attention to the fact that this legislation has caused a needless death that was easily preventable. Don’t like abortions? Don’t have one. Really simple stuff!

      Reply
    • Gareth – you would support legalisation of drink driving as well then. Don’t like drink driving don’t do it – don’t like abortion don’t do it.

      Reply
    • Completely separate issues. I honestly have no idea how you expect to be taken seriously making ridiculous comments like that, and it really brings to light the standard of argument that the pro life movement have on their side if that’s the best you can come up with. Drink driving endangers not only the driver, but also any number of victims in proximity. Legislation for the X case can save the life of the mother, and the pro life movement is so deeply invested in the illusion that this issue is in black and white that people like you are blind to the grey areas where cases like this reside.

      Reply
  • emmaoc i was thinking the same I don’t know a lot about the existing legislation but i thought that doctors could give a medical abortion if the mothers life is in danger, so is this not more of an issue of doctors not making the correct decision.

    Reply
    • Hi Ann,

      This explainer may help – the issue is extremely confusing.

      http://www.thejournal.ie/ireland-and-abortion-the-facts-424165-Apr2012/

      Basically, women in Ireland are allowed to have a legal abortion if their life is in danger. The Supreme Court ruling after the X Case gives the clearest judgement in this but it has not been legilslated on yet.

      So, the Constitution still reads:
      The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

      Which differs from the Supreme Court ruling, which set the precedent:

      In my view, the true construction of the Amendment, bearing in mind the other provisions of Article 40 and the fundamental rights of the family guaranteed by Article 41, is that, paying due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, when there is a real and substantial risk attached to her survival not merely at the time of application but in contemplation at least throughout the pregnancy, then it may not be practicable to vindicate the right to life of the unborn.

      Confusing, right?

      Therefore, doctors work in a sort of grey area. As there was a foetal heartbeat in this case, the doctors would not legally be allowed terminate the pregancy until a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother arose. Obviously we can’t pre-empt reports so we don’t know if/when/or at all doctors thought Savita’s life was at risk.

      Hope this helps.

      Reply
  • And #Gilmore is more concerned about bringing on a referendum on same sex marriage!

    Reply

Add New Comment