Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital

[anrmenchaca47]

BTW I’m pro-life here!! It was simply a question…nothing more

 

[lonelypetunia]

It depends: to my knowledge, there is no official Catholic stance on treatment of every possible life-threatening pregnancy complication but it is left to the woman and her doctors to apply the principles of our faith.

Difficult one and of course we don’t have all the details. Interesting to see what would be the response of people who claim that there are no conditions in which delivery of a pre-viable fetus (medically termed, abortion) is required to save the life of the mother. Complications like this happen every day, they just don’t make the news because the pregnancy usually is ended by medical or surgical means.

I agree! I would be very interested in hearing the responses thoughts on this case. Does this woman’s situation really qualify as an abortion? The baby was not going to survive and unfortunately the mother didn’t survive. I’m not sure I would qualify this as a abortion as the woman was in a definite miscarriage? (i’m not an MD). This is a definite case for discussions on ethics of such situations.

 

[St_Francis]

There has never in the history of the world been a fetus that survived after delivery at 17 weeks. Low 20 something weeks are the earliest on records. The woman did ask for an induction, but the doctors refused it because they knew the fetus would not survive. Therefor, inducing the labor would have been an abortion, as it would have undoubtedly resulted in the fetus’ death.** The “double effect” principle would not apply here because the only action would have been killing the fetus. **It would not be like a cancerous uterus or an ectopic pregnancy, where the affected part of the body is removed and the fetus dies in the process of removing that body part. They were not planning to remove her entire uterus. The sole purpose would have been aborting the fetus.

I am not sure about the bolded comment, could you cite the sources which explain this?

Catholic bishops in Ireland have defended the hospitals actions and said that it was in line with Catholic beliefs, that it did not matter that the fetus was in the process of dying, the correct action was to let the mother die rather than taking any action to hasten the fetus’ inevitable demise.

Sources?

Attempts to blame the hospital on this thread seem completely unfounded: the hospitals states their actions were forced by Catholic political doctrine. The Catholic Church agrees with them, they say yes this woman should have been left to die. Catholicism is what killed this woman, do not pretend otherwise. The only thing left for you to do is argue why it makes sense for a woman - who can be saved to be forced to die with her fetus.

The normal practice in a case like this in the US would be at the very minimum to give painkillers and to give antibiotics as a preventative measure. The septicemia may have been caused by a virus, in which case the antibiotics would not have helped, but there has been no indication that this infection was viral. Apparently antobiotics were not given to the patient until she was already sick.

So at the very least, not everything that could have been done was done.

The hospital told Halappanavar, who is Hindu, that she could not be induced because of Ireland’s Catholic beliefs. She responded that she was not a Catholic. This was not taken into consideration.

It was wrong to say it was because of Catholic beliefs. In fact, it was because of the recognition of the *scientific fact *that she had a living human being inside her that certain actions, which would have directly attacked the baby, could not be performed.

This case does a good job of showing the problem with allowing abortions “only in the case where the mother’s life is in danger” - which Ireland does allow. When you restrict abortion to these circumstances, it puts a doctor in a very dangerous situation. If the woman is genuinely dying due to her pregnancy, and they perform an abortion, and she lives, how does the doctor know that prosecutors won’t say that the woman’s life wasn’t REALLY in danger? It’s a hard case to prove after the fact, if she survives. It makes sense that a doctor would be very reluctant to perform an abortion even if the woman’s life is in severe danger, because even if the doctor was correct in their assessment, who says the authorities will agree with them, rather than charging them with a serious crime?

This problem can be easily remedied by an examination of the issues and establishment of standard practices.

It really is sad that the Catholic Church thinks so little of a woman’s life, that it is not worth saving if it means slightly hastening the death of a dying fetus.

The Catholic Church very much values *all *human life. How can we say we value human life if we are willing to *kill *an innocent human being?

 

[_Abyssinia]

Ireland: Lack of Abortion Didn’t Kill Woman, Pro-Life Groups Say

A Catholic hospital stands accused of being responsible for the death of a pregnant woman and pro-abortion activists say its refusal to allow her to have an abortion to save her life cost her her life.

But two leading Irish pro-life groups say that is not the case.

Responding to the tragic death of Mrs Savita Halappanavar who was 17 weeks pregnant and died in University College Hospital, Galway, Dr Ruth Cullen of the Pro Life Campaign said:

“We extend our deepest sympathies to the husband and family of Ms Savita Halappanavar who died from pregnancy related complications.

It is deplorable that those who want to see abortion available here are exploiting Mrs Halappanavar’s tragic death when the Medical Council Guidelines are very clear that all necessary medical treatment must be given to women in pregnancy. Given this, we welcome the fact that a thorough investigation to establish what went wrong is taking place.

It is also vitally important to acknowledge at this time that Ireland, without induced abortion, is recognized by the UN and World Health Organisation as a world leader in protecting women in pregnancy and is safer than places like Britain and Holland where abortion is widely available.”

The pro-life group Youth Defense also responded to Halappanavar’s death:

Our thoughts are with the husband and family of Savita Halappanavar at this very difficult time.

This is a tragic loss, and we need to remember that Irish doctors are always obliged to intervene to save the life of a mother – even if that risks the life of her baby.

In fact, the Medical Council are very clear in this regard that their guidelines state that doctors will be struck off if they don’t intervene to save the life of a mother. The result of the investigation into Ms Halappanavar’s death will make the facts known, and journalists have been rushing to pre-empt those investigations when they are not in full possession of the facts.

According to the information that is available, it seems that a delay in administering antibiotics may have been the cause of the septicaemia which tragically led to her death.

Experts commenting on the case have made it clear that in such cases the main concentration of the medical team treating any woman in this situations would be on maintaining her health. “In such situations, you expedite delivery,” one Obstetrician told the Irish Times. Interventions to deal with the cause of the illness are not considered a therapeutic termination of pregnancy, another Dublin-based practitioner told the newspaper.

Ireland’s ban on abortion does not pose a threat to women’s lives, according to the Obstetricians and Gynaecologists who care for Irish women every day. In fact, without abortion, Ireland is one of the safest places in the world for a mother to have a baby, according to the United Nations.

“This is a hugely difficult time for the family of Savita Halappanavar, and we hope that the investigations shed a full light on this tragic loss of life,” said Niamh Uí Bhriain of the Life Institute.

“It is very sad to see abortion campaigners rush to exploit this case to further their own agenda,” she added. “The tragic loss of Savita Halappanavar’s life was not caused by Ireland’s ban on abortion. We need to ensure that mothers and babies are best protected; and abortion is not part of best medical practice. It is medieval medicine.”

 

[RPRPsych]

That hospital is responsible for that womans death.

True. This isn’t a theological issue so much as medical negligence.

And how did that infection get in there?

Some hard questions have to be asked: not about whether this is an argument for “pro-aborts” (which it isn’t), but as to what exactly the doctors in that hospital were up to.

 

[fabio_rocha]

What you guys think about this? Is abortion should be done in this case?
montrealgazette.com/news/Ireland+probes+death+critically+woman+denied+abortion/7546683/story.html

 

[Ridgerunner]

I’m not a doctor (though i intend to ask one about this) but there are some things about this that don’t make sense to me.

A 17 week baby is not totally incapable of surviving birth, though it’s not favorable. If her cervix was dilated and she was losing amniotic fluid, I wonder why the physicians didn’t think the baby’s best (though improbable) chances of survival lay in inducing labor. The doctor is stated as saying the baby would not survive. Well, if he wouldn’t survive, then why not try?

There is no clear explanation why the woman was septicemic. Labor and birth by themselves won’t do that. If the baby was necrotic, which could possibly, but not necessarily, explain it, then why did they think they had a heartbeat? And why, indeed, did anybody attribute the septicemic condition to the pregnancy at all? Was something else going on? What was the source of the infection? The article never says.

And why did antibiotics fail?

And why E coli, the source for which is usually the digestive tract or unsanitary conditions which allow infection from remote digestive sources?

There is more to this, but the article doesn’t give enough information to know what it is.

 

[bellasbane]

And how did that infection get in there?

If she was leaking amniotic fluid it seems reasonable to assume the amniotic sac had ruptured, which would allow bacteria to enter and grow. If the rupture was small there would still be fluid present. Amniotic fluid is just baby urine - a prime medium for bacterial growth, especially at body temperature. Under the right conditions, bacteria can grow very rapidly! It could have progressed to deadly levels in a matter of hours. Antibiotics might not have been able to keep up with it and it could also have been a resistant strain.

 

[pepipop]

I’m not a doctor (though i intend to ask one about this) but there are some things about this that don’t make sense to me.

A 17 week baby is not totally incapable of surviving birth, though it’s not favorable. If her cervix was dilated and she was losing amniotic fluid, I wonder why the physicians didn’t think the baby’s best (though improbable) chances of survival lay in inducing labor. The doctor is stated as saying the baby would not survive. Well, if he wouldn’t survive, then why not try?

There is no clear explanation why the woman was septicemic. Labor and birth by themselves won’t do that. If the baby was necrotic, which could possibly, but not necessarily, explain it, then why did they think they had a heartbeat? And why, indeed, did anybody attribute the septicemic condition to the pregnancy at all? Was something else going on? What was the source of the infection? The article never says.

And why did antibiotics fail?

And why E coli, the source for which is usually the digestive tract or unsanitary conditions which allow infection from remote digestive sources?

There is more to this, but the article doesn’t give enough information to know what it is.

Yes, I think an induced labour would have been the best solution, as the fetal heartbeat was still apparent - although obviously the baby would not have survived. I can only ‘guess’ they thought she may hold unto the baby, although with a dilated cervix, etc., that seems improbable. Miscarriages and partial miscarriages can and do cause septicaemia.

 

[sophion]

“Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby,” he told The Irish Times in a telephone interview from Belgaum, southwest India. “When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning, Savita asked: ‘If they could not save the baby, could they induce to end the pregnancy?’ The consultant said: ‘As long as there is a fetal heartbeat, we can’t do anything.”’

Read more: montrealgazette.com/news/Ireland+probes+death+critically+woman+denied+abortion/7546683/story.html#ixzz2CDmlKe6C

this is just religious extremism.

 

[davidv]

What you guys think about this? Is abortion should be done in this case?
montrealgazette.com/news/Ireland+probes+death+critically+woman+denied+abortion/7546683/story.html

Based on the the first sentence of the article

DUBLIN, Ireland — The debate over legalizing abortion in Ireland flared Wednesday after the government confirmed a miscarrying woman suffering from blood poisoning was refused a quick termination of her pregnancy and died in an Irish hospital.

It appears there is a serious problem with facts. First, if the woman was miscarrying, remove the dead tissue wound not be abortion. Second, if she a blood infection, how would an abortion be a valid treatment?

 

[sophion]

Based on the the first sentence of the article It appears there is a serious problem with facts. First, if the woman was miscarrying, remove the dead tissue wound not be abortion. Second, if she a blood infection, how would an abortion be a valid treatment?

And from what hospital are you from, Doctor?

look for excuses instead of dealing with the problem. amazing.

 

[St_Francis]

Based on the the first sentence of the article It appears there is a serious problem with facts. First, if the woman was miscarrying, remove the dead tissue wound not be abortion.

First, the baby was not yet dead, that is why the doctors could not proceed with a “removal of dead tissue.”

Secondly, it seems that normal procedures were not followed in this case. At a very minimum, it seems that standard medical procedures would have called for antibiotics to be adminstered as a preventative to precisely what happened, and painkillers as well.

Second, if she a blood infection, how would an abortion be a valid treatment?

The blood infection is a common side-effect of prolonged labor, which is why doctors usually administer antibiotics. The blood infection can also be caused by viruses which we cannot treat, but the antibiotics should have been administered much earlier in the process as a preventative measure.

 

[Ghosty]

C-sections don’t come without risks. They obviously believed that she was safer miscarrying on her own and then having a D&C.

Right, which is why I say I don’t have all the facts in this case. What I do know, however, is that there is nothing morally wrong with delivering a child early to save the life of the mother, and that’s my point. If labor is induced and attempts are made to save the child then the principle of double-effect comes into play.

Peace and God bless!

 

[pepipop]

Lots of protesters are now outside the government buildings in Ireland, wanting the abortion legislation changed.

irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/1114/breaking19.html

*Pro-choice campaigners have called on the Government to legislate for abortion when the mother’s life is at risk, following the death of Savita Halappanavar after she miscarried at University College Galway last month.
*

 

[St_Francis]

If she was leaking amniotic fluid it seems reasonable to assume the amniotic sac had ruptured, which would allow bacteria to enter and grow. If the rupture was small there would still be fluid present. Amniotic fluid is just baby urine - a prime medium for bacterial growth, especially at body temperature. Under the right conditions, bacteria can grow very rapidly! It could have progressed to deadly levels in a matter of hours. Antibiotics might not have been able to keep up with it and it could also have been a resistant strain.

Apparently, however, it is normal practice in the US at least to administer antibiotics as well as painkillers in a situation like this.

The antibiotics were not given to her until a couple of days had passed. While what you say may have come to pass anyway, it might not have had they been administered more promptly.

 

[sophion]

Secondly, it seems that normal procedures were not followed in this case. At a very minimum, it seems that standard medical procedures would have called for antibiotics to be adminstered as a preventative to precisely what happened, and painkillers as well.

what are you, another doctor???

 

[Gorgias]

And from what hospital are you from, Doctor?

The folks who wrote the articles aren’t doctors, either. And, if you notice, they don’t make any logical connection between the two issues.

for excuses instead of dealing with the problem. amazing.

It’s not about “excuses”, it’s about “clarification”. On the face of it, we have two separate medical issues: miscarriage in process, and septicaemia. There’s only the implied suggestion that the former caused the latter. The only questions being asked here are whether that’s the case.

It would seem, however, that the woman may not have died because she was “denied an abortion”, but rather, because she was not properly treated for the blood infection.

 

[sophion]

The folks who wrote the articles aren’t doctors, either. And, if you notice, they don’t make any logical connection between the two issues.

yeah. but unlike those 2 up there the reporters dont tell everyone what medical procedures should have been followed instead.

t would seem, however, that the woman may not have died because she was “denied an abortion”, but rather, because she was not properly treated for the blood infection.

wow doctors just keep on coming now.

 

[seekerz]

I’m not a doctor (though i intend to ask one about this) but there are some things about this that don’t make sense to me.

A 17 week baby is not totally incapable of surviving birth, though it’s not favorable. If her cervix was dilated and she was losing amniotic fluid, I wonder why the physicians didn’t think the baby’s best (though improbable) chances of survival lay in inducing labor. The doctor is stated as saying the baby would not survive. Well, if he wouldn’t survive, then why not try?

There is no clear explanation why the woman was septicemic. Labor and birth by themselves won’t do that. If the baby was necrotic, which could possibly, but not necessarily, explain it, then why did they think they had a heartbeat? And why, indeed, did anybody attribute the septicemic condition to the pregnancy at all? Was something else going on? What was the source of the infection? The article never says.

And why did antibiotics fail?

And why E coli, the source for which is usually the digestive tract or unsanitary conditions which allow infection from remote digestive sources?

There is more to this, but the article doesn’t give enough information to know what it is.

I have known people whose water broke and depending on the stage, the doctor might wait but if there was any sign of infection they would act to deliver the baby because a broken bag of water places mom and baby at high risk of infection. Unfortunately, antibiotics alone would not do the job. That’s the advice they gave those mothers.

What I don’t get is, if the reason for not delivering is that the baby would die, how is leaving the mom ill and untreated going to change that? Seems to me the baby dies either way: by action or inaction; difference is, the mother dies too with inaction. I understand the prohibition of direct killing of course, but I do question as you seem to, whether delivering the baby would qualify as direct killing.