If the inquest into this death, find that this poor woman died as a result of unclear procedures/guidelines/restrictions placed by an ambiguous law, then I genuinely believe that all the Government and FF TDs that voted against the Bill proposed to legislate for this type of emergency in April this year should be charged with manslaughter.

100% Cal!

@Mary, true, I wouldn’t hold my breath for legislation. He was very careful with his language as “legal clarity” doesn’t necessarily mean legislation, something many FG TDs have said they won’t support. They’ll dither for a few months, then change the Irish Medical Council regulations/guidelines.

I was actually just about to check that.

Mr. O’Dea’s office replied this morning to emails sent in by many to him over this issue. It was the pretty much expected attitude of “let’s wait and see what the expert report says”.

I’ve replied that he was one of those who voted this down also….and went a little further too.
I hope that if people are getting glib replies that they can see their way to challenge them.

The biggest kip in the western world.

Thanks to the moronic, Catholic majority.

Then leave, you won’t be missed!

John Donovan, please give it a rest. Your silly anti catholic rants are making the rest of us atheists look bad.

@ John Donovan, I agree john, I mean, it’s crazy that a catholic majority would have the say in the country. Bloody democracy eh???

SF and some independents were the only people to vote for the legislation. So the rest who are calling for this to be dealt with are hypocrites and murderers. Their Níl vote cost this woman her life.

Well…someone clearly hates paragraphs.

Well said Ed

Every single person who marked “Catholic” on last year’s census is responsible for this woman’s death.

It is Catholicism that has prevented abortion being accessible here, and Catholicism only.

Not true John, they were answering a question honestly. They were indoctrined to the catholic faith, against their will at birth and it shouldn’t be allowed till they are old enough to decide what faith they wish to follow!

Neicy- do you even include the ULA etc. TD’s who put forward such a motion last year?

Colm I am well aware that many TDs have brought forward the question but i have always felt this was an effort to appease the pro-choice camp rather than to introduce legislation. Eamon Gilmore and his party should use their position in government to bring about a change that they promised that they would resolve if elected. It is not the only thing that they have reneged on for sure but they are keeping mr head in the sand Kenny in his position and if they thought anything of the people, most importantly those who were duped into voting for them, they would use their position in government to bring about an immediate introduction of the recommended X case legislation. Any elected member who didmt fight tooth and nail to have this legislation inacted is, in my humble opinion, responsible for this terrible situation. They may not be the only ones responsible but if they could not

Regardless of religion – these are the people who make the laws.

@Good man John thanks for confirming which party you’re trolling for.Pervious thread you praise government,but hear you slate Labour.
Don’t feel the need to respond i’m sure your in the middle of packing to emigrate bye now,done commenting to you.

It’s not “trolling” simply because you personally disagree with it, Norman.

John, say what you believe is right and don’t be swayed by red or green thumbs. Wether people agree or disagree or right and wrong. You are entitled to say what you feel!

Didn’t Labour promise legislation on this issue before the election.
They then voted against legislation earlier this year, I think John is correct on this.
Blood on their hands now and that can’t be undone or forgotten about.
Shame on them all.

As a means of contraception it’s the most expensive, most disruptive, most unpleasant one.. Can’t see it catching on really..

Do you honestly think that if abortion legislation was enacted women all over the country would suddenly decide that existing pre-emptive methods of contraception were no longer required and throw caution to the wind? How stupid do you think we are? And more importantly, do you think any woman makes this decision lightly? That slope you are slipping down suggests so.

No, I don’t think people are stupid, I think you’re stupid though. That’s what does happen, when contraception fails which it often does, many, yes many find it more convenient to simply evade responsibility for their actions and terminate their pregnancy. I say if you are old enough to have sex you are old enough to suffer the responsibilities! And I’m not generalising either, this is fact and I know of several cases first hand. And do I think women take this decision lightly? I don’t see who it’s relevant, stupid statement to make.

*why it’s relevant

Well thank you for passing your superior judgement on me..
So, if you act responsibly and take precautions and still fall pregnant – tough eh?
You could tell you were male.. Only thinking about the baby, completely ignoring the pregnancy which is a huge undertaking even when the baby is wanted.. Be careful pointing your finger, you’ve always got three more pointing back at you..

I meant 12 women die every year from sepsis.

Absolutely.

I said I’m in favour of abortion in the case of strict medical necessity – where the foetus is certain to die or the mother’s life is at risk, and got a mass of red thumbs.

There’s an agenda here to force through unquestioned abortion in the country and while men’s rights to children are essentially non-existent this isn’t something I can support.

Way to miss the wider point there! The abortion argument has everything and yet nothing to do with this case. What I mean by that is whatever the facts of this poor womans death are, it has highlighted that abortion in the case of a woman who needs such to save her life is not legislated for in this country. I spoke to a medical practitioner in my family who said doctors and nurses are very much aware of this also!

Yep, you’re right. Giving birth is dangerous. Maybe, like every other life threatening activity, it should be optional? Crazy idea, I know…

John can you get off your high horse there for a minute and address my point, it’s the only opinion you haven’t insulted on here as of yet!

John, over and over you have constantly stated that 84% of Irish people are to blame because they ticked the catholic box on the census, and thereby allowing the Catholic Church to impose their will with regards abortion.
Then also over and over you say we should never allow abortion for anything other than medical reasons.
So you want to impose your will with regards abortion onto all women.
You sir, are a hypocrite of the highest order and no better than the Catholic Church.

ManOnTheStreet,

The Catholics want to prevent abortion because they think it’s killing babies. I, however, don’t care what it’s doing, I want to prevent extending further privilege to women to make massive decisions in a man’s life, without his say.

Except men who decide with their partner to access an abortion. You’re more than happy to keep THEM from having a say.

Spot the misogynist. Great hypocrisy John. This is a human rights issue, not some opportunity to get a dig at women vs mens rights when it comes to parenthood. If you’re going to address inequality apply it across the spectrum, and not to just one area you feel discriminated against personally. Incidentally men don’t give birth or risk complications doing so, which is why abortion legislation directly affects women, but everyone’s opinions regardless of gender are valid and should be considered.

@ John: What “massive decisions” do women have the right to make in a man’s life? What would satisfy you – men having the final call on all fertility issues? Women – as Nick rightly points out – tend to make these decisions in consultation with their partners. But ultimately, it’s a woman’s body. It’s she who will have to go through the birth (or, indeed, the abortion), therefore it’s entirely reasonable for the final decision to be hers. It’s a basic principle of medical ethics that no one has the right to force another adult to undergo a medical procedure. If we changed that, we’d go back to the days where women’s bodies are the property of men.

Spot on, Gemma. John seems to think that abortion rights are some kind of negotiating tool to be used so we can get to the *real* issue – men. That’s contemptible.

(By the way, I happen to think Irish law is highly discriminatory towards fathers. I support changing the law so that both parents – regardless of whether or not they’re married – have an equal right to custody of any children. I still think the way John is using the issue of abortion here to be absolutely despicable.)

Spot on BP, the hysteria over this red herring is absolutely shocking. The facts are, the doctors were perfectly within the law to terminate the pregnancy if they felt the mother was in danger and they could have done so at any time. I’m sure it will come out that they decided on a course of action for medical reasons, tragically the woman died and perhaps if they had taken different action she might have survived but we will never know this. Equally a death could have resulted from an early termination where a non intervention natural miscarriage might have saved the life. To try and use this case as a route to more liberal abortion is disgusting. There is no evidence whatsoever that Catholicism had anything to do with the decision, ridiculous to drag that into it.

@G No evidence? The husband of a dead woman is a liar so is it?

The husband of the dead woman is emotionally involved and upset, the woman herself was in pain and ill, they are not the people who should be deciding what is the best medical action to take. The husband is emotional and looking for someone to blame, do you honestly think a doctor would refuse to take action to save a woman’s life because he is a catholic, the nonsense being spouted out in this case is unbelievable.

No, I believe a doctor would deny her a necessary abortion because he was only 20% sure her life was at risk, not 90%. If her family decided they didn’t like those odds, who is the doctor to decide without the law that the foetus should be prioritized?

This is pure speculation on your part Nick, you basically think a doctor didn’t carry out a safe procedure because he thought a patients life was only a bit at risk, this doesn’t make sense at all. The doctor is legally bound to give the patient the best care available. The fact that the patient and her husband had views on what they believed the best treatment was is irrelevant and should never be a consideration for a doctor.
All medical cases are different and tricky to diagnose, the ultimate decision has to be left with the medical profession surely. The doctor may or may not have made an error which lead to the tragedy but the constitution won’t fix that unfortunately.

Wow G, just wow! So you now know more of the facts of the case than the husband of the deceased who was there! Quite the arrogant, insulting Mystic Meg you are! Get on to TV3, they are looking for psychics!

Women,

The fair solution is to introduce abortion on demand and a process where men can absolve their legal, financial and moral responsibilities to a pregnancy within the same time period that open abortion would offer.

Unfortunately, women don’t tend to support this idea much because it gives men a right that is totally out of their control.

I’m actually all for abortion for anyone who wants it, it has been shown to have huge benefits to society overall, but I wouldn’t see it introduced without some protection and rights for men.

“Unfortunately, women don’t tend to support this idea much because it gives men a right that is totally out of their control.”

No. Women don’t tend to support this idea because it absolves men of their responsibilities and pushes the financial burden of child-rearing (or of having an abortion for that matter – it’s not cheap) on to the woman. You want men to have the benefits of sex without risking any of the potential consequences. Life doesn’t work like that.

She was denied an abortion which she requested. If there is a sign of septicemia, then no, the safest thing to do is end labour early. It’s clear from her husband’s interview that she was denied an abortion not because they felt it was the best care for her, but because the hospital felt legally unable to comply. A clear legislative framework would give doctors an idea how they could act in various degrees of life threatening circumstances.

How could it possibly hurt?

Once again missing the point entirely! Congrats!

Nick, your argument defies belief, you think if the patient tells the doctor the best way to treat her problem is an abortion then he should say, ok that’s fine, I’ll carry one out. What if the doctor believes the best way to save her life is to allow a natural miscarriage and not carry out a dangerous abortion, should he ignore this and just do what the patient asks him to do? why bother having a doctor at all.

“Dangerous” abortion? Abortions are statistically safer than giving birth: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/23/us-abortion-idUSTRE80M2BS20120123. They’re certainly safer than leaving a “natural miscarriage” to fester in the womb.

He’s grieving, not an idiot. They told him it was better for the foetus, not better for her.

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