Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital

[catholictiger]

In your following post you explain the situation well; however, here, you make the error of calling a medical procedure that fits the description of double effect an “abortion”. That wouldn’t be the case, of course. An abortion can never be condoned through double effect; however, a procedure which is not an abortion, yet has the unintended but foreseeable effect of killing the baby may fit the definition of double effect…

my mistake sorry about that.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

why not if thats the only chance they have? what do they have to lose?
me, i’ll take it any time! i’ll stand on my head! .

I won’t recommend you do it because it doesn’t work. I wouldn’t stop you from doing it because it won’t hurt you, or anyone else.

because its against your religious code.

No. I won’t do elective abortions because it is against my morals, which are formed on Judeo-Christian ideology. I wouldn’t perform an non-elective abortion on you because of your (non-fetal/uterine) septicemia because, just like standing on your head in the broom closet, it wouldn’t work.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about this case other than what I read in the newspaper, and I am in no way defending or criticizing the medical practitioners involved.

 

[michele1984]

Yes, often people who are fighting for survival grab at whatever chances they think they have to survive. But that doesn’t mean that I will tell them they should stand on their head in the broom closet, or that they should abort their baby because they have septicemia. Now, if you want to go stand on your head in the broom closet, fine by me…but I am not going to perform an abortion simply because you have septicemia.

The doctor KNEW before septicemia fully set in that the baby would die!! I pray you are never my doctor.

Speaking from Belgaum in the Karnataka region of southwest India, Mr Halappanavar said an internal examination was performed when she first presented.
“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.

 

[Gorgias]

my mistake sorry about that.

No problems. In the pro-life debate in our contemporary society, it’s important (I think) to be precise in the way we describe things; otherwise, we are at the risk of causing people to think that there are cases in which the Catholic Church is OK with abortion…

 

[Boatswain2PA]

This disturbed me quite a bit, not least because Im at a much higher risk of miscarriage than most women should i get pregnant. I know how desirable it feels to stand so firm on your faith convictions that you see issues like abortion in terms of black and white , but to not save a woman’s life, who had already touched so many other lives(like the poor husband who had to bury her! Her own parents and family, those she touched in her work), for a baby that was likely to die soon anyway?? This honestly is what fuels the little doubting voice in my mind on the way to converting to Catholicism. I know the Catholic Church officially says that abortion is not a sin where the mothers life is in danger, but in places where the Catholic religion reigns supreme like in the Irish Republic in this case, and another similar case I heard about recently in a Latin American country, this kind of militant stance seems to stand.

Michele - I see nothing in these news articles to lead me to believe that an abortion would have increased her chance of survival in the slightist bit. Conversely, performing invasive procedures on septic patients is very high-risk. There is much more to this story than the article is telling, and the articles have a very obvious slant.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

“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.

Why?

 

[stephe1987]

#1. This woman died because of medical negligence. Her blood infection was left untreated for at least three days (she was in the hospital for three days, and clearly had the infection before she was admitted) while they waited for the baby finish being miscarried. Of course by the end of the three plus days, the infection took over. They should have treated her as they would treat a pregnant woman who had a blood infection. Then they could have saved her without violating their consciences. [Well, duh!]

#2. These doctors have a very poor understanding of Church teaching. Sadly, many non- or anti-Catholics will read this story and assume that the Church teaches what they did is right. I hope the Pope or Bishop makes a clarifying statement press release. The Church teaches that BOTH mother and child are to be treated with equal dignity. Save both if possible. If the mother’s life is in danger or both mother and child will die if the condition is untreated (e.g. ectopic pregnancies), then it is permissible to treat the mother, even if the (unintentional) result is termination of pregnancy. The Church is against abortions for no reason other than convenience, i.e. abortions that are medically unnecessary.

 

[sophion]

I won’t recommend you do it because it doesn’t work. I wouldn’t stop you from doing it because it won’t hurt you, or anyone else.

of course it doesnt! but thats just an analogy! point is, if there is a chance- TAKE IT!
even if it means aborting a baby doomed to die anyway.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

The doctor KNEW before septicemia fully set in that the baby would die!! I pray you are never my doctor.

Speaking from Belgaum in the Karnataka region of southwest India, Mr Halappanavar said an internal examination was performed when she first presented.
“The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.

This is a new piece of information. Where did you get this quote from? If this is true, then it points to chorioamnionitis which is usually treated with delivery of the fetus and antibiotics. If the cervix is fully dilated, then there generally is no need for an abortion because a miscarriage is imminent. However, if the miscarriage doesn’t happen, and signs of infection begin, then things get much more challenging…

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The Church is against abortions for no reason other than convenience, i.e. abortions that are medically unnecessary.

This is completely untrue. The principle of double effect is much more nuanced than people realize, and ectopic pregnancies are one of the few situations where it applies.

If the treatment was “We have to terminate the fetus or else the fetus’s presence will cause the mother to die due to inability to give treatment”…you can’t terminate the fetus. An ectopic pregnancy is different because killing the fetus is not directly related to the treatment. You would do the same thing whether or not the fetus was within the mother.

 

[sophion]

Why?

because religion held the doctors back from taking necessary chances at saving the woman’s life.

 

[CrimsonThorn]

This disturbed me quite a bit, not least because Im at a much higher risk of miscarriage than most women should i get pregnant. I know how desirable it feels to stand so firm on your faith convictions that you see issues like abortion in terms of black and white , but to not save a woman’s life, who had already touched so many other lives(like the poor husband who had to bury her! Her own parents and family, those she touched in her work), for a baby that was likely to die soon anyway?? This honestly is what fuels the little doubting voice in my mind on the way to converting to Catholicism. I know the Catholic Church officially says that abortion is not a sin where the mothers life is in danger, but in places where the Catholic religion reigns supreme like in the Irish Republic in this case, and another similar case I heard about recently in a Latin American country, this kind of militant stance seems to stand.

Wow really? Is that your criteria for who has the right to live?

So if Ive touched more lives than you have, does that make my life worth more than yours?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

because religion held the doctors back from taking necessary chances at saving the woman’s life.

Not at all. Not wanting to kill one person to save another did.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

of course it doesnt! but thats just an analogy! point is, if there is a chance- TAKE IT!
even if it means aborting a baby doomed to die anyway.

I don’t disagree with you on this point. But perhaps there was a similar chance that the antibiotics would work, and thus allow both patients to LIVE!

The point I am trying to make here is that we don’t have even a small fraction of the information for this case. While we are certainly justified in discussing it, we should be careful not to cast stones.

 

[_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.”

 

[michele1984]

This is a new piece of information. Where did you get this quote from? If this is true, then it points to chorioamnionitis which is usually treated with delivery of the fetus and antibiotics. If the cervix is fully dilated, then there generally is no need for an abortion because a miscarriage is imminent. However, if the miscarriage doesn’t happen, and signs of infection begin, then things get much more challenging…

I have to get to class so I can’t get into this discussion too deeply right now but here is the source:

irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html

 

[Gorgias]

#1. This woman died because of medical negligence.

#2. These doctors have a very poor understanding of Church teaching.

Your assertions might very well be true. However, we really don’t know that this is the case, at this point – the relevant medical facts haven’t been presented in the media (and, given privacy considerations, might never be); moreover, we don’t know anything about what the medical staff was thinking (all we have is the husband’s second-hand report of his understanding based on a single conversation with one person at the hospital).

Each of these uncertain conditions can lead us to jump to premature conclusions. Certainly, that’s what we seem to be seeing from the media reports…

 

[sophion]

This is a new piece of information. Where did you get this quote from? If this is true, then it points to chorioamnionitis which is usually treated with delivery of the fetus and antibiotics.

its all over the news.

If the cervix is fully dilated, then there generally is no need for an abortion because a miscarriage is imminent.

thats exactly how they approached the problem:

*At lunchtime the foetal heart had stopped and Ms Halappanavar was brought to theatre to have the womb contents removed. “When she came out she was talking okay but she was very sick. That’s the last time I spoke to her.”

At 11 pm he got a call from the hospital. “They said they were shifting her to intensive care. Her heart and pulse were low, her temperature was high. She was sedated and critical but stable. She stayed stable on Friday but by 7pm on Saturday they said her heart, kidneys and liver weren’t functioning. She was critically ill. That night, we lost her.”*

irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1114/1224326575203.html

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Let’s say the article is true (which, apparently, it very well may not be). The doctors refused to abort a fetus even to save the life of the mother. This is not an immoral choice.

 

[Bezant]

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

As I pointed out in another thread, there’s an even bigger problem dangling than whether or not an abortion could have prevented this poor women’s death, about which we can only speculate. In theory Ireland permits abortion in life-threatening circumstances, but when these situations arise in practice, there’s no legislation guiding doctors on when they can perform a legal abortion:

"Abortion remains a divisive issue in the Republic of Ireland, but not as divisive as it once was.

But the country’s abortion laws are a mess and have been for 20 years since what was called the ‘X case’. ‘X’ was a suicidal pregnant 14-year-old school girl, the victim of a rape who was initially prevented from leaving the state to terminate her pregnancy.

The Irish Supreme Court ruled that the mother and child have an equal right to life but that the threat of suicide was grounds for an abortion. However, no government has enacted legislation to give certainty to doctors as to when terminations can be carried out and under what circumstances."

(bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741)

“A, B and C v Ireland [2010] ECHR 2032 is a landmark case of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to privacy under article 8 ECHR.”

C had been undergoing chemotherapy for cancer for 3 years. She had wanted children, but advice from doctor’s indicated that a foetus could be harmed during any ongoing chemotherapy. The cancer went into remission and she unintentionally became pregnant. While consulting her general practitioner on the impact of the pregnancy on her health and life and tests for cancer on the foetus, she alleged that she received insufficient information due to the chilling effect of the Irish legal framework. She researched the issues on the internet alone. Because she was unsure about the risks, she decided to go to the UK for an abortion. She could not find a clinic for a medical abortion, since she was a non-resident and the need for a follow up, so she needed to wait a further 8 weeks for a surgical abortion. The abortion was incompletely performed. She suffered prolonged bleeding and infection, and alleged the doctors provided inadequate medical care, and her general practitioner failed to refer to the fact after subsequent visits that she was no longer visibly pregnant.

“The Court held that “Article 8 cannot… be interpreted as conferring a right to abortion”.[5] It nevertheless considered that **Ireland had violated article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights with regard to the third applicant, C. because it was uncertain and unclear whether she could have access to abortion in a situation where she believed that her pregnancy was life threatening. Rather than information being unavailable, the problem was that there was nowhere C could go to secure a legally authoritative determination of what her rights were in her situation.[6] **.”

(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A,_B_and_C_v_Ireland)

Hence in Mrs. Halappanavar’s case, the hospital was left to decide on where the law begins and ends, justified with the bizarre excuse:

"I’m sorry, unfortunately it’s a Catholic country’ and it’s the law that they can’t abort when the foetus is live."

In my opinion it’s completely absurd. Regardless of whether it is right or not, the law should be clear, particularly for the sake of emergency situations.