Irene , what utter rubbish ! I agree totally that we must legislate. What we are talking about in this article is basically , the attitude of Praveen to whatever inquiry. Not the broader issue of ECHR. Talk to the subject

@rory. I suggest you should re read my posts. I am speaking of the rights of Mr Halappanavar to request a public inquiry. If mr Halappanavar takes this to the European court of human rights, because his rights are not being met, Ireland will be obliged to abide by the ECHR ruling as we have signed up to the European convention. The ‘attitude’ you speak of is mr Halappanavar seeking justice for his dead wife and he feels a public inquiry is the best way to get that since, as i have explained earlier, it will involve, among other issues, cross examination under oath.
According to his solicitor this morning and irish council for civil liberties he is well within his rights and would have just cause for taking this case to the ECHR in accordance with article 2 of the European convention for human rights.
I was responding to your initial comment of ‘ the issue does not have to revolve around his demands’. I was merely pointing out that the man is asserting his rights.
But given your ‘attitude’ I suspect you probably believe that the Irish council for civil liberties are talking ‘utter rubbish’ too.

Irene . this whole sad episode cannot be inquired into at the dictates of Praveen. Just think what a precedent this would set. Does it mean that every death in every hospital would be subject to the demands of the next of kin ? Clearly , the man is distraught at this awful event , but a nation cannot respond just as he wishes. Yes , there ought to be an independent inquiry in this case. An inquest would be one way of doing it , where there is a right to cross-examination. But ,by talking of the ECHR at this stage is way off kilter. Deal with it by inquest first and this will show whether something else is needed. If so , proceed and do it.

@ Rory.
An inquest is exactly what the man is asking for!
According to Praveen halappanavar’s solicitor, he will only go to the ECHR if a public inquiry does not happen. You yourself stated ‘ yes there ought to be an independent inquiry in this case’. An independent inquest would be one way of doing it, where there is right to cross examination’. Yet you are quite critical of mr halappanavar’s demands to request just that. He does have rights, it would seem, according to iccl
There is the independent coroners inquest of course but this will not cover all aspects of events leading up to savita’s death. There are some concerns over HIQA investigation ie will it suffice, expressed by some e.g iccl today. Though independent, they outlined several problems with such an investigation. So where does that leave him, when he does not trust any hse investigation, understandably, because it would not be independent.

Re your comment about what kind of precedent would it set. I would hope, in a democracy that in the events of an erroneous death in a hospital, the next of kin would be entitled to ‘demand’ a fully independent inquiry that would satisfy their need to find out what happened. Perhaps this case might set a new precedent on how state and hse should handle such cases so that it doesnt end up getting to the stage where the next of kin is demanding a public inquiry to get justice. I and im sure many service users would welcome that.

The issue does not have to revolve around his demands [not requests].

@ Rory. The issue does relate to the RIGHTS of Praveen Halappanavar.

Irene, actually it doesn’t, at least not totally.

The most serious and immediate issue now relates to the safety of future pregnant women and ensuring that this doesn’t happen again. In this context, a HIQA enquiry is entirely appropriate. A public enquiry would take too long and be too legalized to get to the root of this issue.

The HIQA enquiry also has no bearing on whether or not a public enquiry can take place.

@irene, surely it is about the rights of Savita Havappanavar?

People seem to be forgetting her rights whilst jumping on various bandwagons

@bob.
Firstly, I did not suggest that a HIQA investigation is not appropriate. What I said it would not meet Praveen Halappanavar’s requests.I am speaking about an investigation into savita’s death. The wider issues relating to making safe hospitals for pregnant women, which although are necessary ( and will hopefully improve the care that pregnant women receive in general) and i dont dispute they need to be done, are secondary to the Halappanavar case.
Secondly the issues relating to the manner/ nature of the investigation, are central to Praveen Halappanavar’s rights. This is in accordance with his solicitor and the irish council for civil liberties. The issue is about Praveen Halappanavar wanting an investigation to bring to light what happened to his wife. We have all seen the prime time programme where he clearly does not have any faith in a hse investigation. He wants a public inquiry, he is not getting one and therefore is considering asserting his rights under article 2 of the European convention for human rights because currently, according to his solicitor, he is not getting these rights met.

Minister Reilly, the week this case broke stated there would be an investigation that would have to hold up to international scrutiny. International scrutiny by means of the European courts might well demand a public inquiry if they deem Mr Halappanavar’s rights are not being met.

@ vocal outrage. You are right this is about savita’s rights, that is why her husband wants this case to be thoroughly investigated in a manner that he sees will get to the truth. Not ‘jumping on a bandwagon’ here? Surely that is why he is doing all of this in the first place because he feels her rights were not met and now she is dead.

I’m sorry Irene but I consider the rights of living pregnant women to be paramount in this case. That no-one else should die needlessly ought to be everyone’s primary objective. Praveen Halappanavar’s rights are unfortunately secondary to this – not the other way around as you suggest.

As I said, the public enquiry that Praveen Halappanavar wants can still happen; however, such an enquiry would take a while to set up and would also likely mean that all parties get legalled up. I have very little confidence that such an enquiry would lead to a speedy conclusion and identify any changes that need to be actioned immediately.

@bob.
. For Mr Halappanavar, why his wife died is his primary concern and getting the issue investigated thoroughly and independently via a public inquiry ( hence my reference to general safety aspects re maternity services of galway hospital being secondary to his case – not to negate such important issues as you seem to suggest i am doing- rather to put the perspective from his side of the fence and why he wants a public inquiry).
I reiterate that my post in no way suggested a HIQA investigation should not go ahead. However, a HIQA investigation should not negate the rights of mr Halappanavar as per the European convention of human rights.
Indeed, President Higgins came out with a statement that any investigation has to take into account the family’s concerns as well as the state

Possibly good news though, until we see their terms of reference we can not be sure.

@tom. According to the Irish Council for Civil liberties Praveen Halappanavar is acting within his rights. Or, are you suggesting that the experts from the Irish independent watchdog for human rights are confused?

@ Tom. I would also like to add that in terms of meeting and excelling at our obligations, I really hope you don’t mean this in a general sense. Because we are failing on many levels to meet the rights of many people including women who request a termination if they are already miscarrying the baby and/ or their life is endangered.

we have meet and excelled in our obligation so far. there is no requirement to do more. two independent inquiries is more than sufficient at this time.

now you have brought the pro abortion campaign into this and I can see why you feel that we should go futher.

it’s not about justice, malpractice or laws being unclear that could or might prevent a similar tragic death but a push for pro choice.

that will have to wait for a referendum at another time

@ Tom. You speak with authority that the hse and hiqa investigation are sufficient. It could well be the European court for human rights, not you, who will decide whether the hse/ hiqa investigation is sufficient.

Well said John.

Either that or the European court of human rights may demand that Ireland conducts an appropriate independent inquiry such as a public inquiry ( what mr halappanavar wants) or something along the lines of a commission of investigation, if the government doesn’t initiate same first.

@ Irene

Or may just reject the demands as being unreasonable and unwarranted

Yeah, we are some country. We’ve managed to come up with four different types of inquiry none of which are of the type that is needed and to which there is an entitlement.

@tom. They might Tom. But that would be up to the ECHR.

Are they actually pages of notes missing or did they just not write stuff down?

Hi Sean, not sure – I would doubt that physical pages are missing – more that requests were not documented. (Reports are coming out that initial requests for termination were not documented, however later requests were – not unusual, I would say an overplay by the media).

Can’t really see how that’s important then. Terminations aren’t granted by request so why would it be noted in the chart?

Terminations are considered by request – if a woman requests one and lists a legally valid reason, I would hope there would be a record of it being considered.

There is no legally valid reason to request a termination. i thought this had been covered already. The law was never overturned, even after the Supreme court decision. A doctor can perform a termination during a medical intervention in order to save the life of a woman.

Possibly not, seeing as how you seem to have made up your mind without access to all the facts. If the HSE didn’t have an inquiry, people would be rightly complaining. HIQA are probably best placed to do an independent inquiry, they have a good history of not holding back.

@ Donncha It’s not going to investigate why successive governments refused to legislate on the Supreme Court’s decision in the X Case, which held that a woman had a right to an abortion under Article 40.3.3 if there was a real and substantial risk to her life.

Andrew, regardless of the cowardice of generations of Irish politicians, there still needs to be investigation to establish if Savita was refused a termination on solid legal grounds.

Many people are suggesting that there it was negligence within the current (unsatisfactory) legal arrangement.

Kerry
Do you have the qualifications and relevant experience to be able to qualify the terms of reference of this HIQA enquiry because most of your contributions on these pages seem to be straightforward political denunciation of Government actions with attendant Sinn Fein messaging. Perhaps you would advise us as to how you’re so qualified.

Andrew (and the thousands like you), if you’ve already made your mind up about what happened, why have an enquiry at all?

heresay, such comments should be deleted for the sake of the integrity of the comment board,.

I have freedom of speech and its not hear say

You don’t have freedom of speech on an internet forum or message board. And freedom of speech does not protect you or The journal from defamation proceedings.

Someone recounting their own experiences isn’t hearsay. Hearsay is recounting events you have no personal knowledge of…

oh an internet link, because if it’s online it’s gotta be true!!!!

Katie Does, what if Praveen’s recollection is incorrect? Is that not for an inquiry to determine? You are prejudging this. Let an inquiry determine if such a request is made. It seems that you are seeking an inquiry into something that you have already decided. An inquiry will determine that. Not you. What would you say to the hypothetical situation if everyone in GUH said such a request was not made?

From my understanding it was not her requests that were noted, it was the staffs action. So it wouldn’t say “patient requested glass of water”, it would say “patient given glass of water”. And the hard fact is that giving her an abortion would have been illegal, no matter how many requests she made.

Mary , how is it that you know such a request was made ?

@Rory We know because her husband, who was with her, said so.

But I wondered when that question would be asked. I knew from the start that eventually there would be people who would be able to look at this bereaved man, see his all to raw and real grief, and still accuse him of lying. Have you come up with any reason that satisfies you as to why Mr Halappanavar would have lied about such a request being made?

Go away with your conspiracy theories…. I live and work in Galway and have friends who work in NUIG and to say they have been completely knocked for six by all of this is an understatement… What bugs me the most is there is some sort of general assumption on here and in the media in general that the staff in NUIG are incompetent or worse again incapable of being fair and honest….This discussion has been so one sided and i for one will wait till thye full facts emerge!!! Did the consultant in charge deny a termination for example?? Its all gossip and completely inappropriate as far as i am concerned… Shame on all of you on here…!!!

@ Declan maybe you trust the Government. Nice world to live in. But some people live in the Real world of politics and now what goes on. http://www.independent.ie/national-news/reilly-denies-savita-probe-a-shambles-as-notes-on-requests-for-a-termination-missing-3303063.html

Fair play Declan, I have nothing to do with NUIG but agree that it’s completely one sided. No one knows the facts and appears that on a few occasions the public appear to be government bashing for the sake of it and going completely off topic. I think the two inquiries are enough and this is what every other person in our country gets in relation to a death. Also, notes were not made re a termination because if its not case X then what was being asked is against the law of our land and wouldn’t be documented. Maternal deaths are so rare in or country because we have an extremely high standard of care to people. Let the details emerge and vicious rumours stop until all the facts are known!!

Sure just go ahead there Michael and quote a internet link!!!! Give me strength!!!! I have no reason no to trust the people who work in NUIG because in my experience these people are of the highest integrity and have a fantastic work ethic…Its nothing to do with Goverment tbh…Enda K was not there that night, neither was Dr O’Reilly or amyone else for that matter….
I am sick to the teeth of this conspiracy theory bull that floats around this site….
I stick to my original point…Those of you passing comment without knowing the true facts of the case are a complete disgrace!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thats includes journalists and j.ie

They won’t have a problem with a full public inquiry then will they?

@Declan With the best will in the world you can’t say authoritativly of any group of hundreds of people that “these people are of the highest integrity and have a fantastic work ethic”. You’ll have a fairly random cross section of humanity in there, some will deserve that description, others will definitely not, many will just be of average integrity with an average work ethic. Which is fine, that’s just how people are.

Nor can any they be granted immunity from having their actions questioned and examined closely by virtue of where they work or how highly they are thought of by people in the locality or anywhere else. That’s sadly the kind of exemption from scrutiny that led to horrendous abuses in hospitals and other ‘caring’ institutions in that past.

You are right, there is a huge difference between the response to this case and ‘ every other person in our country gets in relation to a death’. But there has to be. We’ll all die and most of us will die in hospital. However the circumstances of this case, the fact that it exposes a serious lego-medical issue and the international public controversy that has now ensued (and whatever you think of that, it can’t be undone) renders this case very different from the norm, and that’s why it needs to be treated differently.

Does that become the norm then and every person that has lost a wife/girlfriend/mother/aunt/niece under the same circumstances get a public investigation? I have the deepest sympathy for this case but we don’t know the full facts and therefore cannot assume against any worker or decision made in NUIG until what actually happened is known!

@rachel That’s kind of circular logic. We can’t have an independent investigation cos we don’t know the full facts?

And yes, if anyone is lost under the same circumstances they should have full and complete investigation. Because the seriousness of the issue does not change depending on the person involved.

it’s unlikely he will give any cooperation but that should not stop both inquiries preceeding and completing their findings.

Best use of tax payers case, to actually insure the tax payer is getting what they paid for at considerably lower cost that a tribunal of enquiry

all funded by the tax payer

And judges are paid by the taxpayer/state also, hence by that logic an independant enquiry is impossible

So you want a privately funded, impartial public enquiry? Best of luck there, champ.