I had more sympathy before he began to dictate the terms of the inquest to the state. Also the fact that he claimed the termination request was not in the medical records.

Sorry belly up, I didn’t realise there was a book called “How to conduct yourself after your wife dies in agony begging for a life saving procedure”. Can I borrow your copy?

didn’t she die 3 days after a d and c???!

Well Belly Up perhaps if the State was responsible for the death of your wife or girlfriend you might not be so pleased with the State then dictating the terms of the inquiry into that death. It’s the age old question- ‘Who guards the guardians’.

Irrespective of the outcome of two seperate inquiries this case is going all the way to the European Court of Human Rights. Because if the last 20 years have shown us anything it is that the political and legal classes in Ireland don’t have the balls to grapple with the abortion topic and instead like to pass the parcel onto someone else. Praveen will get his justice in Europe, just like David Norris did with his case on homosexuals being treated as second class citizens. Its said to say but if you want justice and deceny in Ireland then don’t look to the Irish justice system- go to Europe where the courts have a culture of justice and fairness, unhindered by religious dogmas.

I can see why the guy would avoid dealing with anyone but his solicitor as what would have happened is some top notch would try get him to sign and say everything had been handled correctly leaving him with no come back

Oh wow Derek, you seem to have conducted your own inquiry and come to your own conclusion. How wise you are!!

How are you his spokesperson

It is very hard to come back from a position of declaring that he will have no hand act or part in an inquest and then appear on the 1st day and co-operate fully
If I were Praveen I would seek advice elsewhere as it is my humble opinion that his case has not been served properly so far

Jerry — That’s not what happened. He never said he wouldn’t engage with the inquest.

@ Belly Up, you made two assertions. Both are inaccurate. I can see how peeved you are. Give it time, let the full facts emerge and you might even eventually recognise that Praveen’s persistence will benefit Ireland.

It’ a shame that the Coroner’s Inquest is so very restricted in the nature of the verdict it can make but we can all agree that transparency and full disclosure are desirable. Let the full facts and circumstances emerge into the public domain. This could even be a cathartic process but it is too early to say for sure.

What is your point Sandra? Savita died after being refused an abortion as she,as a medic herself requested, knowing the tragic situation she was in. One, which had it been granted would have saved her life, as the inquest will determine I have no doubt. . And for those who think its too premature to state this fact, wait a few weeks. And then you can scurry back under your rocks.

Oh look another person who has conducted their own inquiry, amazing. Please, present to us all the facts of this case and the conclusions you have drawn from them. Not everybody who isn’t jumping on the ‘justice’ bandwagon is pro-life. I myself am pro-choice but I tend to wait for the full facts to emerge before reaching any conclusions of my own and looking like an idiot.

@ Belly Up, chuckling. It’s too late to stop the full truth publicly emerging. Very little can be done to provide comfort, redress or any form of vindication to Mr. Halappanavar and Savita Halappanavar’s life cannot be restored but Ireland will ultimately benefit from the exposure of the full truth and the undeniable reality of what happened.

Inquests, HIQA inquiries and internal reviews will all contribute to identifying and proving what happened but there is nothing to stop a citizen in a republic drawing her or his own conclusions and expressing them.

A Coroner’s Inquest is not the administration of justice but it will be a useful forum for exposing the truth.

By the way, assertion of legal rights is not dictating the terms of the inquest and there was no assertion that the request for termination was not in the medical records. Please refer to Gerard O’Donnell’s specific statements.

I am pleased that it is accepted that the request for termination was made and indeed was denied for legal reasons.

I’m not saying you can’t draw your own conclusions. I’m simply saying you look like an idiot to any intelligent person on this website (few and far between) when you do so without the full facts. Again you seem to know a lot more about the facts of the situation and you seem to know what the outcome will be. I invite you to share your knowledge with everyone else.

Also please tell me exactly what legal rights he was asserting? Does everybody in this country have the right to a state funded public inquiry into their loved one’s death that isn’t a Coroner’s inquest?? He has the right to demand, just like you have the right to jump to conclusions but that doesn’t mean he is right.

@ Belly Up, laughing! I note your repetition of looking like an idiot.

You evaded most of my points. Praveen was asserting his rights as conferred by the European Convention on Human Rights.

I looked at Gerard O’Donnell’s statement and Praveen’s responses to questions after the first day of hearing and it seems that he is initially positive. I am glad of that. He needs a public forum to express what happened and for the other unfortunate participants to explain what they say happened. It’s a healthy process.

I will let the Coroner’s process ventilate the facts and I welcome this limited process. It is nowhere enough in itself but it is a step in the right direction.

Change comes passing slow but change is on the way.

Please tell me these rights that he is planning to assert in the European Court of Human Rights. By the way I am in no way saying that her death wasn’t due to failure to terminate the pregnancy, I’m saying I’m not drawing any conclusions so I welcome a full and frank inquiry by the Coroner and others. I also welcome liberalisation of our abortion laws but I won’t let that cloud my judgement of what happened.

I have addressed your points. I have told you that you are basing your points on your already drawn conclusion. You didn’t even make any real points anyway. All you’ve basically said is that we’ll all learn from the inquiries, while inferring that the inquiries will find that the failure to terminate the pregnancy led to her death.

Come on Peter, I’m waiting.

@ Belly Up, sure you abused me as a plank, said that twice that I looked like an idiot and professed that you are one of the few intelligent people on this site. In all modesty, how could I hope to be able to converse on your superior intellectual level.

Today was a modestly good day for Praveen, at last we are starting to confront this terrible tragedy and its cause, and hopefully Praveen will fell that he has honoured his commitment to Savita’s bereaved parents on obtaining accountability.

I am pleased that a man of your obvious intellectual superiority welcomes the Coroner’s inquiry and other inquiries. This validates the views of most of the rest of us. Thank you Belly.

You still haven’t answered my questions. I will admit I got the facts wrong, it was his legal team that said the requests were not in the medical records. I doubt Mr Praveen protested too much at that though but if being pedantic makes you feel like you’re right then that’s fine. Now can you please answer my questions.

@ Belly Up, please list out your questions in numerical order. I’ll do my best to reply but please understand that these will merely be the opinions of an intellectually inferior person, compared to you.

I like your technique of side stepping points, selecting just one or two opinions and then focusing in on them.

In fairness, and leaving aside your invective, you should indicate what opinions expressed by me, you agree with.

Ok please tell me which points of yours I have side-stepped. Fair enough I called you a plank – I shouldn’t have but smug laughing, particularly when you’re wrong is irritating. I called you an idiot but I would call anybody an idiot who came to their own conclusions when 1) They have no expertise in the area 2) They don’t know the facts. If you would like me to phrase it nicer, I don’t think that is a very smart thing to do.

I want to know
1) What rights does he have under the European Convention of Humans Rights that have been breached?
2) How have you come to your inferred conclusion that Savita’s death is due failure to terminate the pregnancy?
3) How exactly has the Irish State been attempting to obstruct the disclosure of the ‘truth’?

I agree that Irish society can be backward looking and many of our laws are draconian and horribly outdated and religious. I don’t agree that Praveen’s determination etc will benefit Ireland as I think he is looking to blame people. That is understandable in his position and it might in fact turn out that there is blame to be placed whether at previous governments for failing to legislate or at the medical professionals for their inaction. However it may also turn out that Savita would have died anyway, regardless of whether the pregnancy was terminated or not. His demands irked me as I felt they were reactionary and unhelpful. Again understandable in his position but compounded by people like you who have jumped on the bandwagon in his support blaming everybody from the medical professionals to the government to pro-life nutters without waiting for the facts to be borne out by an inquiry.

Belly Up, that is truly outrageous. I don’t believe and I don’ accept that the clinicians were in any way to blame. Although I decided to cease communication with you, I really have to make the position clear.

The clinicians could not induce the foetus, at 17 weeks, with cervix fully dilated, because that would have preferred the life of Savita over the interests of the foetus. Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, introduced by the Eight Amendment created a legal stalemate situation outside of the X case and incapable of being resolved. The clinicians were prevented by law from effecting an induction. Delay in such circumstances is dangerous to the pregnant woman who remains vulnerable to infection so long as the cervical remains open.

The clinicians were not negligent, incompetent or less than conscientious based in the facts known so far. A calculated decision was taken to refuse a termination. They had to refuse because to have provided a termination would have been a criminal offence.

I saw Praveen tonight express how the Inquest has been a ‘tough journey” for him, but I see resolve. I have no idea why you would criticise Praveen’s actions.

One of your questions below is false because you question me on an opinion which I never expressed and which I do not hold.

Your first question is answered by the ICCL letter which set out the precise position on the entitlement to an early and full public inquiry under the European Convention on Human Rights. Please Google it. It is easy to find and is quoted in the Irish Times.

Which opinion have I attributed to you that is not true? You have said you believe Praveen. Praveen has said that Savita died because she did not have an abortion if I am not mistaken.

I wasn’t specifically saying you are blaming the medical professionals but you are part of a tide of public opinion that have blamed a number of parties for the incident. I agree the way it was phrased made it seem like that and I apologise.

If I have learned the difference between infer and imply tonight I hope you will learn that to come to a conclusion is synonymous with forming an opinion.

I have also discussed on this website before that his rights have not necessarily been breached under the ECHR. For the EHCR to hand down such a ruling would involve them expressing grave concerns about the fairness of any inquiry not held in public, something that the court would be very unlikely to do. It would mean that the court would not trust Ireland to carry out a fair inquiry – not going to happen.

You believe in the justice system. I believe in justice. I think given the fact that a request which could have saved her life was ignored by the doctors, by the HSE and ultimately the state, he is in an understandable position of not having much faith in our often self serving justice system. Family emotions can run high in these awful situations but the man has a right to voice his concerns after everything he has been through.

Well said, Lauren. He seems to be an incredibly courageous man. Best wishes to him, I do not have one negative word to say about him.

I fully take your point and agree with petr. This is not a subject where red thumbs bother me in the slightest. You absolutely must distance a self serving political system from our justice system and i don’t believe you are doing this. The family deserve every chance to engage with the investigation but i stand by my statement. If we want to be a first world nation then our judiciary must not be influenced by politicians victims or criminals. I am however disturbed on hearing that two people have yet to make statements and the committee are having trouble getting them. Doesn’t sound good

It wasn’t ignored Lauren, it was refused, wrongly in my opinion but that’s for other reasons. The fact is we don’t know if an intervention would have saved her life. Also I don’t see how what happened in the hospital has any bearing on the independence of the judiciary so trying to conflate those two issues is a bit of a non sequitur.

@ Chuck, what terms of the inquest is Praveen seeking to dictate? Genuine question.

I can answer. He wants it to be public.

No sorry, he is demanding that it is public

@ Belly Up, you are very good to answer for Chuck. A Coroner’s Inquest is public by law. I agree that Praveen was entitle to demand and to receive a public inquiry. This benefits not only Praveen but it is in the interests of transparency and it is in the public interest to ventilate all of the facts, not merely the request for and the refusal of a termination. It is also good to see the Inquiry commence early and the assurances of the Coroner are reassuring. It looks good so far.

Demanding that it’s public! hahahahahah *facepalm* :)

@ Petr Tarasov, I had to stop myself commenting that Belly Up went “belly up” on that one. Ahh well.

By the way, that was a nice and good thing to say below about Praveen. Many people fail to realise that in doing what he is doing, he may benefit us all.

I’m not talking about the Coroner’s inquest you planks.

@ Belly Up, go on, give it another spin. Try varying the insults a bit. You can do better.

Well the smug laughing is especially ironic, particularly when if you had read my reply to another comment of yours you would see that I know the Coroner’s inquests are held in public.

Bell Up, you keep giving. I am enjoying the belly laughs. Fair dues. More please.

Well you can keep chuckling away in your smug ignorance. People like you are ten-a-penny online. You still haven’t explained how you’ve come to your conclusions.

@ Belly Up, I have expressed no conclusions, I have expressed views and opinions. I am not accountable to you and I am not in any kind of official position. I cannot explain how I have come to conclusions since I have come to none.

I agree with you on one thing you said. It is true that I am one of the ten a penny online,. I am ordinary, not intelligent, not well educated, not privileged and have no profound wisdom. I merely have empathy for a fellow human being who lost his wife in truly nightmarish and horrendous circumstances, I feel for Praveen, I wish him well in his difficult endeavour and in an old fashioned way of expression, I am on his side.

In that regard, I think that many of my fellow people in Ireland feel the same. We support Praveen and we are behind him in his quest.

Thank you for the fun. Please leave me with one more good insult to see me off. You win but you should hammer it home, displaying your intellectual prowess to all who are still reading. After all, this is about your showing your superiority, a superiority I modestly acclaim.

For me, it’s just been an opportunity to express an emotional solidarity with Praveen Halappanvar and to express hope that he will receive some resolution from this.

Opinions can be conclusions and you inferred in your comments that Savita died due to failure to terminate the pregnancy. This is a conclusion. You also said the the Irish State is attempting to obstruct the uncovering of the truth. I express my solidarity with Praveen in that I hope the full facts of the case come to light. However this does not mean that I expect blame to be laid anywhere. If there is blame found then so be it but I won’t lay the blame before I know what happened.

@ Belly Up, I disagree. My opinions are certainly not conclusions. I imply nothing and you should infer nothing. Please distinguish between implication and inference.

It is my opinion that in the early stages our Government sought to keep a lit on this tragedy. I would not go so far as to say that the Irish State sought to obstruct the uncovering of the truth. Please don’t ascribe to me opinions which I have not expressed.

The Coroner can’t conclude or attribute blame or responsibility.

The advantage of the ten a penny crowd, of which I am proud to be numbered, is that we are not Judges, we are not fact finders, we are not adjudicators and our opinions have no weight. This allows us a latitude of expression and opinion not open to those entrusted with the inquiry and conclusion functions.

You may await the conclusion of the various inquiries but I personally believe Praveen’s reported accounts, it is consistent with the bare facts as known so far and I am open to the idea that when the entirety of the inquiries are concluded, I may have to revise or modify my original opinions.

I am puzzled why you are bothering with an intellectual inferior. I have already acknowledged your superiority in a gracious and deferential manner.

@ Belly Up, the question to Chuck was about the terms of the inquest. I made that clear. I wanted to know what terms of the INQUEST Praveen was seeking to dictate. It was only after you we’re informed that the law requires that a Coroner’ Inquest must be held in public that you then changed your position having said that demand was that it be held in public Tricky boy!

Well there you have it. You are relying on the testimony of an emotional, reactionary husband who has been through a very difficult ordeal. Unfortunately for you Praveen is not a medical expert and while his account of events may be true this does not mean his wife died due to failure to terminate.

‘Despite the obstructiveness of the Irish State the full facts and circumstances will be exposed’ – your very words.

This illustrates that you believe the Irish State is attempting to obstruct the uncovering of the truth.

Also please tell me exactly what legal rights he was asserting? Does everybody in this country have the right to a state funded public inquiry into their loved one’s death that isn’t a Coroner’s inquest??

Remember this?? Shows that I knew a Coroner’s inquest was held in public BEFORE you and Petr had your little chuckle.

The first paragraph should be in quotation marks.

@ Belly Up, so many mistakes, distortion and inaccuracies. Parvenu is emotional, distraught at times, but deep emotion can create true clarity and real honesty. Proven has not yet given testimony. He made an 8 hour statement, voluntarily and without compulsion, to an Garda Siochana and it transpires that the medical records, as leaked, corroborate Praveen’s account in a materially important respect.

Yes, you quote me correctly. The Irish State was obstructive by not acceding to Praveen’s demand, a demand within his rights, for a public inquiry outside a Coroner’s inquest, which is an extremely limited and restricted process. Please refer to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. I refer you again to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties letter. They are experts. I am not.

So far, Praveen has shown himself to be reliable and consistent. He was there. He saw what happened. I am not a doctor but, as a matter of common sense, it seems that an open cervix, open for three days, without removing the unviable foetus was a recipe for infection according to a hospital microbiologist who posted comments about six weeks ago. I was impressed by her explanations and learned a lot from her explanations.

I have read the X case Judgments, I have read Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, and I have attended a lecturer by a Senior Counsel who laid out why, in law, a termination is a criminal offence unless there is a real and substantial threat to life to the pregnant woman at the time of assessment, not a future threat, not a possible threat, not an emerging great but a threat which by the time it is real and substantial may be too late to address. Organ failure and toxic shock are common consequences of septicaemia, often causing death but the threat is only real and substantial when the infection is diagnosed.

Of course, it is truly absurd that clinicians should have to address intractable legal issues at a time of potential medical crisis.

It is incontrovertible that a termination was refused, it is clear that this was for legal reasons, it is clear that these legal reasons were well founded and the only remaining matter of medical significance is whether an early termination might have saved Savita’s life. I remember being in the difficult situation of being asked to consent to a major surgical procedure for my father. I was advised that the procedure might save my father’s life, but give him some further time, but there was no certainty. He had the procedure and died an hour later post surgery of post operative complications. Medicine is often grey and ill defined.

It is possible that Savita might have lived without a termination and it is possible that Savita might have died with a termination but the indisputable medical opinion is that a termination was the best medical option for Savita and it is undeniable that the law prevented such termination. Obviously legal considerations prevailed over medical considerations and it is my view that bad law inhibited good medicine.

Night.

‘So many distortions and inaccuracies’ and then you claim that moments of deep emotion bring real clarity. Well I’ve got news for you, they can also totally distort a person’s recollection of events.

What exactly have I distorted?? You’ve admitted to doing everything I accused you of. You’ve admitted that you’ve drawn your own conclusions without any real knowledge of the facts and you’ve admitted saying the Irish state is obstructing the truth (having previously denied it)

You’ve admitted to doing the very thing I was deriding you for in the first place. Also if you look at the times of my comments you will see that I knew a Coroner’s inquest is held in public before I ‘changed’ my position.

Chuck referred to an inquiry, not an inquest.

I referred to an inquest. That was the question and it was the question which you answered.

I assumed you were referring to Chuck’s claims. You were? Weren’t you? I mean you did mention him by name in your comment.

Belly Up, you started the thread 19 hours ago at the top by referring to Praveen dictating the terms of the Inquest and having replied to my question to Chuck about the nature of the terms dictated as to the Inquest, you answered that question address to an inquest. You were badly caught out in an error and you received a face palm from another poster.

Belly Up, you have gone belly up on each and every point you have raised. You never engaged with the emotional substance of this tragedy at all, you criticised Praveen in a cowardly and nasty way, showing no understanding of his tragedy, you tried to weasel out of matters and points made and refused to accept any reasonable points.

You were spoiling for a fight, you got one and you are far from one of the few intelligent people commenting on The Journal Articles as you sell profess to be. In fact, you are not that intelligent but you are slippery in your techniques.

Professing your own superior intellect and insulting those who disagree with you as planks and idiots does not advance a debate. It is insulting. Wrongly ascribing opinions never expressed is plainly dishonest. Distorting what someone says is also dishonest.

One thing occurs to me. A person who criticises Praveen Halappanavar after his tragedy is unlikely to be a reasonable, balanced or proportionate individual. On the contrary such a person is likely to be narrow minded, judgmental and xenophobic.

Wow you’re a real piece of work. Essentially accusing me of being racist because I disagree with Praveen demanding a public INQUIRY. Apologies if I mixed up my terminology. You did too when you asked Chuck about the inquest when he clearly said inquiry. Let me be clear, I mean INQUIRY. You also claimed that forming an opinion based on a set of facts isn’t the same as coming to a conclusion.

In one sentence you accuse me of ad hominem attacks and then in another you do the same to me. How have I been narrow minded? I may have been judgemental when it comes to you but not when it comes to the case. How exactly have I been xenophobic? That is downright disgraceful to accuse somebody of that without any basis for it. You have just proven yourself to be judgemental. You have no idea where I’m from nor what colour my skin is. Throwing around words like that for no reason other than me disagreeing with your argument is disgusting. I have pointed out where I have a problem with your argument yet you have not done the same with me. Instead you have just nitpicked things like me calling you an idiot or mixing up my terminology. I have asked you to tell me which opinion that are not your have I attributed to you yet you will not. You have denied and then admitted 1) Coming to a conclusion before all the facts of the case are known 2) Claiming the Irish State is obstructing the truth. You have tried to weasel your way out of the argument by using the definitions of words to avoid being pinned down.