Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital

[bellasbane]

I wish Robert would merge the two threads on this topic, because going back and forth between them is getting confusing.

 

[CaptFun]

I think your dark side, Captfun, may be too dark ,How I HOPE you are right!

I really cannot see medical professionals letting a patient die for a political agenda (i hope). Yeah … we think alike possibly. Medical professionals are about the best people on earth … and yet … we have abortion where some of “them” kill rather than heal … so like your little (I hope) at the end … there’s a nagging little caution that gets into the middle of my generally soaring opinion of “them” (Doctors, Nurses, etc.)

However, the devil has reared his ugly head once again - the timing is ‘so perfect’ it’s quite unbelievable. The decision to legalise abortion in Ireland, so there will be no risk to the mother, may come out today and/or by next week definitely. The case has made the mainstream UK news, as well, i.e. 24/7 on BBC.

Already several councils in Dublin are calling for an abortion law. YOY. My dark side doesn’t drive the bus but it is a brake pedal. They CAN get too large sometimes and make one cynical which is generally not good. Thanks for the encouragment. But here I am bracing myself again.

That some folks are taking advantage of this tragedy AFTER the fact does little to quell my fear that (maybe - though I hope not) someone in position to help this woman and her baby might have not quite done their best – ONCE in a while I’ve met some very zealous political folks whose dedication to their ideas might just vitiate against a person should they be “in the way” of a cherished goal or an “end that justified the means”.

In that case the “means” would not even be taking destructive action, but just … not helping so much so fast.

That said … I hope this tragedy was an unfortunate coincidence … that being "why didn’t they try to save baby and mother … even if saving the baby was unlikely?

Saving BOTH does not compute in some quarters. Abortion is favored, taught, justified,
zealously defended as a right and politically championed from classroom to congresses.
Saving BOTH? Simple as that is … IT has no similarly visible champions.

irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1113/1224326525485.html

My dark side goes to bed at midnight. Prayers for the Mom, baby and family. And Ireland. Beautiful country of my ancestors.

 

[CaptFun]

My water broke, I was 3cm dilated.

They did an ultrasound to see if I was replacing the fluid. Since I was, they put me in the hospital, with IV antibiotics. I was told that I would remain there, being tested for infection regularly, until I gave birth. I was on bed rest, with my hips higher than my head.

If I had not be replacing the fluid, they would have delivered then.

I ended up delivering that evening, just 6 hours later. (Our baby lived and he is a six foot tall young man.)

Without all of the information in the OP, we can only guess what happened and why. It could have been that the woman was so sick, she was going to die anyway and delivery would have brought death faster. I don’t know the laws in Ireland, but in the US, the hospital can’t defend itself to the media due to privacy laws.

Without responding to all of your post or its many facets (thank you) let me just add a big GOD maryjk!

You left a little room for God! Which is what I was going to write to some of the other
(good, practical) people who don’t quite adopt the “try to save them both” approach of me and some others here … due to liklihoods, probabilities and Doctors’ opinions of what could be done.

From what you wrote the Doctors, etc. were helping you to give birth under trying circumstances … and if any of them mentioned an abortion or termination to you - you neither mentioned it above nor took that counsel if they did. I find myself loving so many of the women in my life who have given birth. WE cannot repay them (you) but we can appreciate and be inspired by your sacrifice for another – which is the purpose of our short visit to this planet enroute to … hopefully … an eternity of better things with other wonderful children of God! :extrahappy: - you RULE!

 

[PaulToJesus]

news.yahoo.com/ireland-probes-death-ill-abortion-seeker-115438751.html

I am sorry if this is in the wrong place, or if a thread has already been started on it. Feel free to modify or do whatever is necessary.
In the article it states the woman would not have died if they had performed an abortion. My feeling is that there is more to the story than what anyone is saying. But what if it is the whole truth?
And how do we go about defending this?
Thanks all.
For prayers, and for being here.

Sorry, I just found the other thread on this. Thought I could delete this one, but alas…

Too difficult to judge from here. Only doctors may say what happened. Our opinions will be empty air.

 

[VivienneJ]

Abortion is crushing or tearing apart or poisoning the baby in utero. But the choice should not have been abort the baby or stand back and wait for “nature to take its course”. The baby could have been delivered by c-section as that is what was needed to save the mother’s life. Everything possible could then have been done also to save the baby, even though the survival of the baby would have been highly unlikely, the intent of a c-section is not to kill a baby, but to deliver a baby safely. The c-section does not kill a baby - abortion does.

 

[PaulToJesus]

Abortion is crushing or tearing apart or poisoning the baby in utero. But the choice should not have been abort the baby or stand back and wait for “nature to take its course”. The baby could have been delivered by c-section as that is what was needed to save the mother’s life. Everything possible could then have been done also to save the baby, even though the survival of the baby would have been highly unlikely, the intent of a c-section is not to kill a baby, but to deliver a baby safely. The c-section does not kill a baby - abortion does.

goood

 

[chosen_people]

The situation is quite simple. The rights of a 17 week non-viable fetus were preferred over the rights of a living breathing mother. As a result both the mother and the child died. The decision taken was not only contrary to Jewish law, not only seemingly contrary to objective medical reasoning, it also cannot be considered to be “pro-life” as it resulted in the deaths of both the mother and the child.

 

[_Abyssinia]

The situation is quite simple. The rights of a 17 week non-viable fetus were preferred over the rights of a living breathing mother. As a result both the mother and the child died. The decision taken was not only contrary to Jewish law, not only seemingly contrary to objective medical reasoning, it also cannot be considered to be “pro-life” as it resulted in the deaths of both the mother and the child.

You are assuming if the baby was aborted that would of saved the mother but how do you know? That is what the mainstream media is also alleging. Those who were not in the hospital at the time do not know if there was any way to save the woman

Where does it say in the Torah abortion is allowed? What of Exodus 21, law of Moses?

Tertullian in Treatise on the Soul, chap 37 says

The embryo therefore becomes a human being in the womb from the moment that its form is completed . The law of Moses, indeed, punishes with due penalties the man who shall cause abortion, inasmuch as there exists already the rudiment of a human being, which has imputed to it even now the condition of life and death

Philo of Alexandria said in Special Laws III.108-109; cf. Exod 21.22 LXX I believe on Exodus 21

If a man comes to blows with a pregnant woman and strikes her on the belly and she miscarries, then, if the result of the miscarriage is unshaped and undeveloped, he must be fined both for the outrage and for obstructing the artist Nature in her creative work of bringing into life the fairest of living creatures, man. But, if the offspring is already shaped and all the limbs have their proper qualities and places in the system, he must die, for that which answers to this descriptions is a human being, which he has destroyed in the laboratory of Nature who judges that the hour has not yet come for bringing it out into the light, like a statue lying in a studio requiring nothing more than to be conveyed outside and released from confinement

Philo of Alexandria says more in Special Laws III.110-119

Pseudo-Phocylides says in Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 184-186

a woman should not destroy the unborn babe in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures as a prey

Antinquities of the Jews 4:278, Flavius Jospehus says

He that kicketh a woman with child, if the woman miscarry, shall be fined by the judges of having, by the destruction of the fruit of her womb, diminished the population, and a further sum shall be presented by him to the woman’s husband. If she die of the blow, he also shall die, thelaw claiming as its due thesacrifice of life for life

Against Apion 2:202 he says

The Law orders all the offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the foetus; a woman convicted of this is regarded as an infanticide, because she destroys a soul and diminishes the race

 

[Pitcharan]

Good to see serious discussion of this issue because I agree with the former poster: it is important to clarify. Apparently, in some countries, the understanding of biology that lawmakers have (and the sources of medical advice they seek) oversimplifies the whole issue of pregnancy complications and can place women’s lives at risk. There is no bright flashing line to say when a woman goes from sick to deathly sick, as I’ve experienced personally.

These decisions should be left to the judgment of doctors and ethics committees on a case by case basis without fear of criminal penalties. We are no longer in the days when an ectopic pregnancy had to rupture before treatment could be rendered, why should a woman have to suffer for days to allow her baby to die inside her? From what I have read, the doctors told the couple very early on that the baby would not survive and the risk of infection was not unknown. Would delivering the baby have been illicit? That’s what I’d like to know.

If the problem faced by the patient was Irish Law, then they could have shifted treatment to a neighbouring country. It is unfair to criticize the Law of a democratic country.

 

[thistle]

news.yahoo.com/ireland-probes-death-ill-abortion-seeker-115438751.html

I am sorry if this is in the wrong place, or if a thread has already been started on it. Feel free to modify or do whatever is necessary.
In the article it states the woman would not have died if they had performed an abortion. My feeling is that there is more to the story than what anyone is saying. But what if it is the whole truth?
And how do we go about defending this?
Thanks all.
For prayers, and for being here.

Sorry, I just found the other thread on this. Thought I could delete this one, but alas…

DIRECT abortion is never permissible, even to save the life of the mother.

 

[Carina20]

Has anyone taken the time to listen to the audio interview that the husband gave to the Irish Times? (It’s on the page that was linked to, earlier in this thread.) We don’t know the facts from the hospital just yet, because they’re still investigating, but according to the husband, the timeline is something like this:

Sunday morning: she has back pains, goes to the hospital, they check her out (BP, fetal heart rate, uterine temp) and say that there’s no infection, everything’s going to be ok, and they send her home. Later, after an incident in the bathroom, she rushes back to the hospital. After a couple of doctors examined her, they determined that the baby wasn’t going to survive. They thought that this would happen in 4-5 hours, after which she could go home; they admitted her into the hospital. They began giving her antibiotics on Sunday evening.

On Monday morning, there’s still a fetal heartbeat. They ask what can be done (apparently, she asked “please induce me as soon as possible”). On Tuesday, they’re told that they can’t (abort?).

Tuesday evening, she begins shivering and vomiting; they give her paracetamol, take blood & urine samples.

On Wednesday, the doctor tells the husband that it could be a couple days before the blood & urine test results come back. The baby’s heartbeat stops at 2pm, and they immediately prep her for surgery, give her anesthesia, and successfully remove the baby and the placenta. At this point, hospital staff tell the husband that she’ll be OK in a few hours, but they want to keep her in the HDU for that time.

Wednesday evening, she takes a turn for the worse. Her husband is called back to the hospital, and she’s sedated, on antibiotics, and on a ventilator.

On Friday, her condition is deteriorating, but hospital staff tell her husband that she’ll recover. They determine that it’s an E coli infection, and attempt dialysis without success.

By Saturday, her organs were shutting down, and she passes away at 1pm.

So, not being an MD, I can’t draw any conclusions. It seems that they were treating her from the time they admitted her on Sunday evening. It also seems that she was physically OK Wednesday afternoon, following the operation to remove the baby and placenta, but that changed by Wednesday night.

Would this have happened if they’d taken action earlier? Was the woman asking for an abortion, or simply that they induce labor? Should the hospital have done anything more, before the woman exhibited symptoms of septicemia Tuesday night or Wednesday night? Could they have done anything more effective once she exhibited those symptoms?

Thank you! See this is why people shouldn’t get so worked up over a newspaper article. They almost never have all the info (or accurate) info about a case. The article was slanted to make it look like the hospital didn’t treat her at all. It seems that they did a lot to help her but she just got unexpectedly worse very quickly.

 

[seekerz]

In between this timeline and this article, which points out that the principle of double effect rests also on the good to be obtained, an aspect for I must apologize for not seeing before as a factor in the doctors’ decisions:

–the object of the act itself must be morally good
–the evil end must be only foreseen, not intended (in other words, the evil act cannot be chosen as a means to a good end)
–the good end must be equal or in greater proportion to the foreseen evil effects

the situation is clarified.

As long as the mother in Ireland was in good health, the doctors could not hasten the labor or perform a C-section, because the good end was *not *equal to or greater than the foreseen evil effect as one cannot hasten death (here, the death of the baby) as a side effect without a proportionate reason. As long as the mother’s pain was well-controlled (since I now doubt the newspaper’s take on that as well) and her health not seriously threatened, then the 3rd aspect of the principle of double effect did not come into play.

Obviously we cannot know if her life would have been saved had action been taken earlier since the doctors thought she would recover just the day before she died.

That timeline above apparently is a pretty accurate picture of what usually is done in Ireland in those cases. Elsewhere, the baby is usually delivered as soon as possible - according to what I have read. The reason being: nobody can tell for sure when things could go bad for the mother, but they do know for sure that death is a very real possibility. So I’m not sure your assessment is quite accurate - from the moment the woman failed to miscarry on her own, there was a potential risk to her life from delay and infection. These days, women don’t generally die from a miscarriage - that’s because doctors don’t tend to wait and see if the woman will become deathly ill.

It’s like this: we don’t wait until a crash is imminent before putting on seatbelts because we know that there might not be enough time and they do no good once the crash is in progress. In this case, it could be argued that death was a forseeable consequence for the mother.

I get dying for a baby to live…but dying for a baby to die? That’s tough.

 

[seekerz]

Gorgias: The timeline/story you present is terrifying. Stories/cases like this are what make the hairs on the back of my neck stand up when I’m in the ER.

Lay people often put a lot of stock on “she looked fine”. While I certainly do to, I’ve seen lots of people who I knew were quickly dieing “look fine”. In one of the news articles it quotes the hubby as stating she was “talking fine” as she came out of surgery. This makes good news because it is, indeed, shocking to many people to know that they, or their loved ones, can be talking and “looking fine”, and be dead in just a few hours. Unfortunately it isn’t so rare. (Well, kind of rare to be looking “fine” when you’re at death’s doorway…)

I don’t know. Perhaps an earlier procedure would have been worse (introducing even more pathogens into bloodstream). Perhaps they should NOT have done the procedure until the antibiotics had been given more time. Perhaps she should have had better prenatal care to catch a vaginal infection. Perhaps she should not have taken the last six courses of antibiotics she received for viral sinus infections (which set her up for ESBL E.coli).

Should the hospital have done anything more, before the woman exhibited sx of septicemia? In my humble opinion, no. Women have miscarriages all the time. You mostly watch and wait, and let her body do it’s thing. Sometimes you have to help her body out with medications or procedures, but those things carry risks, and I would much rather carefully watch a patient complete a miscarriage than perform an invasive procedure.

Could they have done anything more effective? Yes, but those “more effective” measures carry risks. Let’s put it this way: Would you now, because of this case, propose that any woman between 15-21 weeks gestation who presents with a impending miscarriage (open cervix, ruptured membranes) immediately get a D&C? Wouldn’t that make sense with what we think we know about this case? The answer is no, because those D&C’s carry a risk. Not only a risk of infection, but also a risk of future infertility.

The point I am trying to make here is that there are too many uncertainties, and too little hard information, being presented here for us to sit back and monday morning quarterback the medical staff for their decisions.

IF, and that is a big capital IF, the multiple investigations show that an earlier abortion would likely have prevented her death, AND the physicians didn’t perform the abortion because of the existing vagueness of the laws, then the laws should certainly be changed.

Oh, and “Amen” to what Don said. May the mom and baby rest with the Lord.

And what of standard practice? I read the blog of an OB/GYN yesterday and she seemed quite certain that the standard of care when there are signs of infection during a miscarriage is immediate delivery in addition to antibiotics. Kind of like the way you get nowhere with an abscess (even on antibiotics) unless it’s removed.

 

[seekerz]

It may be well-known, but it’s hardly predictable. A woman’s water breaking most definitely does not automatically mean infection, and infection does not automatically mean septicemia.

This is your guess, based on what you want to believe. Undoubtedly everyone is entitled to his own guess and his own predilections. But some of the previous posters who went through it attest to the fact that it’s just a guess. I have known women who had amniotic fluid leaks, sometimes dramatic ones, who were nevertheless none the worse off for it. Apparently, it’s not at all uncommon. The article does not address true medical causation of the woman’s death. It simply blames the Catholic Church which, combined with the zero detail on medical causation, tells me its a propaganda piece designed to affect the legalization of abortion in Ireland. As such, it’s inexpressably cheap and low. But then, most anti-Catholic articles are.

It’s not a matter of what I want to believe. Lots of women have their water break and they are routinely told that they will be monitored for infection. If it occurs, they are delivered. This is not some once in a lifetime event - early loss of fluid is a relatively common event.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

I wanted to ask about your use of the word abortion above: do you actually mean the sort of procedure that women get when they procure an abortion? I know that medical people use the word differently than do lay people…

Yes, I was using lay terms, and meant the abortive procedure.

 

[charlie5771]

G-d does not want us to Kill a baby even to save the mother life. it is G-d choice to make not man

 

[seekerz]

I’m not sure what you mean by “uterine contents”. A child who can’t likely survive outside the womb can be delivered in order to save the mother’s life, so long as attempts are made to care for the premature child. After all, it does the child no good if the mother dies while carrying them, so delivery is actually an attempt, however remote, at saving the child as well.

It would not be permitted to simply kill the child first and then deliver it, which is what an abortion would be at this stage.

Peace and God bless!

I’m afraid that seems at odds with what I have read elsewhere: abortion is ANY delivery of a non-viable infant, by whatever means; it may be considered direct or indirect, but it is still abortion. Uterine contents means the baby, placenta and sac.

 

[StJudePray4Me]

Abortion is crushing or tearing apart or poisoning the baby in utero. But the choice should not have been abort the baby or stand back and wait for “nature to take its course”. The baby could have been delivered by c-section as that is what was needed to save the mother’s life. Everything possible could then have been done also to save the baby, even though the survival of the baby would have been highly unlikely, the intent of a c-section is not to kill a baby, but to deliver a baby safely. The c-section does not kill a baby - abortion does.

I’m with you here. I don’t know why the doctors did not deliver the baby.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

And what of standard practice? I read the blog of an OB/GYN yesterday and she seemed quite certain that the standard of care when there are signs of infection during a miscarriage is immediate delivery in addition to antibiotics. Kind of like the way you get nowhere with an abscess (even on antibiotics) unless it’s removed.

Back pain, open cervical os with fluid discharge…makes me think she was in process of delivering when she presented to hospital. Allowing an “immediate delivery” in this case equals stopping tocolytics (doubt they were started) and, possibly, starting pitocin. But now we are wayyyyy in the weeds without a map. Did she state she was allergic to pitocin? Did they have her on tocometer measuring positive contractions? Has she had previous c-sections? I could go on and on here because there are hundreds of variables at this point that we simply don’t know.

It sounds like she didn’t have “signs of infection” until she was in for a few days. So, you have a preterm mom who has had an expectant miscarriage for a few days suddenly turn septic…uh oh, that is a big problem.

The lessons everyone should take away here:

#1: We PRACTICE medicine because we will never get it right 100% of the time, but I’ve never met a provider who didn’t do their best for their patient.

#2: The media is horrible. They rarely just tell the story, but instead slant it toward the sensational to stir people up so that they will read more. Furthermore, today’s media tries to drive politics toward their liberal agenda (in this case their pro-abortion agenda). There is ALWAYS much more to any sensational story you hear in the media.

#3: Live life to its fullest, because you never know when your number’s up.

 

[seekerz]

Back pain, open cervical os with fluid discharge…makes me think she was in process of delivering when she presented to hospital. Allowing an “immediate delivery” in this case equals stopping tocolytics (doubt they were started) and, possibly, starting pitocin. But now we are wayyyyy in the weeds without a map. Did she state she was allergic to pitocin? Did they have her on tocometer measuring positive contractions? Has she had previous c-sections? I could go on and on here because there are hundreds of variables at this point that we simply don’t know.

It sounds like she didn’t have “signs of infection” until she was in for a few days. So, you have a preterm mom who has had an expectant miscarriage for a few days suddenly turn septic…uh oh, that is a big problem.

The lessons everyone should take away here:

#1: We PRACTICE medicine because we will never get it right 100% of the time, but I’ve never met a provider who didn’t do their best for their patient.

#2: The media is horrible. They rarely just tell the story, but instead slant it toward the sensational to stir people up so that they will read more. Furthermore, today’s media tries to drive politics toward their liberal agenda (in this case their pro-abortion agenda). There is ALWAYS much more to any sensational story you hear in the media.

#3: Live life to its fullest, because you never know when your number’s up.

Great, but my question was: do you know what the standard of care is when infection complicates a miscarriage and is there indication that it was practiced in this case?

Dying from miscarriage in a first world country is kind of rare, so living like your number might be up any day may be all well and good, but it does not address what happened.

The ‘big problem’ appears to be that she was not delivered as soon as there was a sign of infection on the basis that there was still a heartbeat.