Woman in Ireland Dies After Denied Abortion


karrie
No Party Affiliation
+1
#1
Savita Halappanavar, Death: Irish Woman Denied Abortion Dies From Blood Poisoning (external - login to view)

DUBLIN — The debate over legalizing abortion in Ireland flared Wednesday after the government confirmed that a woman in the midst of a miscarriage was refused an abortion and died in an Irish hospital after suffering from blood poisoning.
Prime Minister Enda Kenny said he was awaiting findings from three investigations into the death of Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old Indian woman who was 17 weeks pregnant. Her case highlighted the legal limbo in which pregnant women facing severe health problems can find themselves in predominantly Catholic Ireland

Full article (external - login to view)
 
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
+2
#2
Wow we have found one country in the modern world that is even lesser enlightened than America.
This is truly a sad situation that a hospital and a country can be dictated to by a church.
 
WLDB
No Party Affiliation
+6
#3
"Pro life" or not this is a case where the abortion certainly should have been allowed. The fetus clearly didnt have a chance at surviving no matter what. That was no reason to allow the mother to die as well.
 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
+9
#4  Top Rated Post
I am pro-life. But truly pro-life. I really don't think religious dogma can decide when my life is and isn't in danger, only my doctor and I can do that. My pro-life stance extends to stating my opinion, that life doesn't end with a pregnancy, but it does with an abortion, that society needs to change its chauvinistic views that the worst thing that can happen to a woman is an unplanned pregnancy. Those are the attitudes I feel I can actually attack and work to change. What I can't in good faith do, is attempt to strip a woman's right to decide when a pregnancy needs to end. Because cases like this infuriate me. That woman was a life, and she carried within her the ability to bring about even more life. To let her die in agony, knowing the baby would die regardless, that is a level of cruelty that is deplorable in this day and age.
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#5
I think it would be an ideal world if every child conceived was a child that was wanted. Until we get to that point we cannot absolutely rule out the choice, which is between a woman and her life partner if there is one and her doctor. I can't say I support abortion but I can't come right out an condemn it either. People can call me a fence sitter if they want to, this is simply my opinion. Abortions have been occurring, and many times they were self-inflicted, since just about forever and no laws/restrictions or judgements are going to change that. I can't support a law which does nothing more than drive behaviour underground, that solves nothing. We need to find a way, without condemnation and judgement, to change the behaviour. I'll second Karrie on her statement that societies attitudes towards unplanned pregnancies need to change as well.

As to the circumstances in the article however, that should never, ever have happened in a modern society with adequate medical care facilities. That was absolutely horrendous and a complete waste of a life.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
+1
#6
The incident was really legalized murder in the name of religion. Doctors are supposed to save lives, not watch sanctimonious hypocrisy while someone they could have saved dies.
 
Locutus
+1
#7
Reporter who broke Savita story admits: there may have been no request for a ‘termination’


DUBLIN, December 3, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Kitty Holland, the Irish Times reporter who broke the story about the death of Savita Halappanavar that launched a global crusade against Ireland’s pro-life laws, has admitted that the story of Mrs. Halappanavar asking for an abortion may have been a little bit “muddled” in the retelling, and there may have been no such request after all.

In an interview this weekend on Newstalk 106, Holland appeared flustered and defensive, deflecting blame for the uproar onto Mrs. Halappanavar’s husband, Praveen. When radio interviewer Marc Coleman of Newstalk 106 (external - login to view), asked her, “You’re satisfied that he did request a termination?” Holland responded, “Oh, I’m not satisfied of anything.”

“I’m satisfied of what he told me,” she said, “but I await as much as anyone else the inquiry and the findings. I can’t tell for certain. Who knows what will come out in that inquiry? They may come back and say she came in with a disease she caught from something outside the hospital before she even arrived in, and there was no request for termination.”

Covering, Holland added, “One may even wonder are requests for terminations recorded at all in Irish maternity hospitals.”

Asked about discrepancies in the reports on the timeline of Mrs. Halappanavar’s care – particularly when, exactly, she started receiving antibiotics after her admittance to hospital – Holland replied, “All one can surmise is that his recollection of events is…the actual timeline… may be a little muddled.” She said that “at one point” Mr. Halappanavar told her that she was only given painkillers, and never received any antibiotics.

Holland later told the state broadcaster RTE that her coverage in the Irish Times “never suggested” that an abortion might have saved Mrs. Halappanavar’s life.

Coleman also queried Holland about discrepancies in her Times report compared to her later reporting in the Observer. After her initial article in the Irish Times on November 14th, Holland three days later wrote in the Observer the disclaimer, “The fact that Savita had been refused a termination was a factor in her death has yet to be established”.

Coleman asked her why that sentence was included in the Observer but not in her original article for the Times. Holland responded, stammering, “Well, I suppose throughout the original article …umm… I mean it was quoting the concerns of the husband, Praveen. And, at no point … I mean … there was … you know it was hinted at in the headline, which obviously I didn’t write. You know, ‘refused a termination’ was in quotes. Umm, but you know I was reporting the concerns of the husband, and what he said he was concerned about and what he said happened in the hospital.

“Whereas my piece in the Observer was a more kind of background piece from my point of view, so it was obviously important for me to say quite explicitly that, you know, it has not been established that a lack of access to a termination…”

Coleman also mentioned to Holland that there are a lot of concerns about the “contrast” between the November 14th report and her later reporting. “It did travel around the world very quickly, the assumption that this woman had died precisely because of a lack of termination,” he said.

“Well, I mean, what I wrote were the concerns of the husband,” she responded, “and I suppose what readers took … decided to infer from that is … what the concerns were of the husband and what he stated happened from his recollection of events in the hospital.”

more/interview


LifeSiteNews Mobile | Reporter who broke Savita story admits: there may have been no request for a ‘termination’ (external - login to view)


Newstalk Media Player (external - login to view)

h/t sda
 
CanIrish
No Party Affiliation
+4
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar SinisterView Post

The incident was really legalized murder in the name of religion. Doctors are supposed to save lives, not watch sanctimonious hypocrisy while someone they could have saved dies.

Wow! I love these broad know all statements…

First of all, I agree that Irish laws need to be brought up to date, and as much as I sympathize with this family there are no records anywhere where either the father or mother requested a termination of the pregnancy, but that is up to the independent investigation to sort that out.

Secondly, nothing was done in the name of religion and the doctors did not ‘commit murder’, they acted in accordance with the law and did everything possible within the law to save her life. During the entire time the doctors made it clear that they could not perform the termination until the heartbeat of the fetus stopped. The child was under constant monitoring for this, but the heartbeat continued until it was too late to save the mother.

The doctors and nurses in this hospital, even by the husbands words were caring and kind and helpful, but were required to act under the laws of the land as would be any doctor in any country.

There is currently a new bill being put through the government to review and possible make changes to the law.

The right to the life of a child however is in our constitution; to make any changes it need to go to a national referendum as any changed to the Irish constitution needs the approval of the people of Ireland, this is not just something that the government an legislate .

The last referendum on this issue was in 2002 when it was narrowly defeated. The chances are that this will go to a referendum again, and this time will most likely will pass.
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

Reporter who broke Savita story admits: there may have been no request for a ‘termination’


DUBLIN, December 3, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Kitty Holland, the Irish Times reporter who broke the story about the death of Savita Halappanavar that launched a global crusade against Ireland’s pro-life laws, has admitted that the story of Mrs. Halappanavar asking for an abortion may have been a little bit “muddled” in the retelling, and there may have been no such request after all.

So if that's the case then how come the article in the OP, written by a different reporter for a different paper, states the government confirmed the events?

Quote:

The debate over legalizing abortion in Ireland flared Wednesday after the government confirmed that a woman in the midst of a miscarriage was refused an abortion and died in an Irish hospital after suffering from blood poisoning.

Just exactly how many reporters are "muddling" the retelling of this story?
 
CanIrish
No Party Affiliation
+4
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by SLMView Post

So if that's the case then how come the article in the OP, written by a different reporter for a different paper, states the government confirmed the events?

Just exactly how many reporters are "muddling" the retelling of this story?

It does not matter.. if she did or did not request the abortion the point is that under our current laws the doctors did what they could do within the law.

This is not about blaming the doctors and nurses; it is not fair to hold them accountable for acting within the law. Even if she did request it, the law would prevent them from doing so.

It is the law that needs to be changed, and this needs to be done through a referendum, the government is tossing this around inquiries because they do not want to deal with the real issue and that is actually make a stand.

This country has a very strong history being controlled by the catholic church so it is hard to shake off some of our old ways.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+2
#11
It would seem to me that the doctors have both a legal and moral obligation to safe the woman's life. She should not havee to ask for termination.
 
CanIrish
No Party Affiliation
+3
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

It would seem to me that the doctors have both a legal and moral obligation to safe the woman's life. She should not havee to ask for termination.

Not sure what you mean, the legal obligation is what is in line with the law of the country..... the same as in any other country, and that is what they followed as they are not above the law... we may not agree with what the legal obligation is, but that is why the current protests are happening and the political pressures is now there to make changes.

Are you suggesting the the Doctors should have acted without any instruction from the woman?
 
Janice61
+2
#13
Thisa is an example why I despise religion....
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by karrieView Post

Savita Halappanavar, Death: Irish Woman Denied Abortion Dies From Blood Poisoning (external - login to view)

DUBLIN — The debate over legalizing abortion in Ireland flared Wednesday after the government confirmed that a woman in the midst of a miscarriage was refused an abortion and died in an Irish hospital after suffering from blood poisoning.
Prime Minister Enda Kenny said he was awaiting findings from three investigations into the death of Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old Indian woman who was 17 weeks pregnant. Her case highlighted the legal limbo in which pregnant women facing severe health problems can find themselves in predominantly Catholic Ireland

Full article (external - login to view)

That's logically and morally indefensible. Nothing rational about it.
 
WLDB
No Party Affiliation
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by CanIrishView Post

Not sure what you mean, the legal obligation is what is in line with the law of the country..... the same as in any other country, and that is what they followed as they are not above the law...

Just because its the law doesnt make it right. If saving a life means breaking the law, then it should be done. A doctor losing a practice or having some jail time is nothing compared to death.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by CanIrishView Post

Not sure what you mean, the legal obligation is what is in line with the law of the country..... the same as in any other country, and that is what they followed as they are not above the law... we may not agree with what the legal obligation is, but that is why the current protests are happening and the political pressures is now there to make changes.

Are you suggesting the the Doctors should have acted without any instruction from the woman?

Generally a doctor is required to do whatever is in his power to save a life. If a person is not capable of giving consent (coma) he/she is deemed to have consented unless there is a clear instruction not to such as a DNR.
 
gerryh
+1
#17
This alone is very telling, and it the silence is deafening with how this has been ignored in this thread

Quote:

She noted that Holland was careful during her interview to emphasize that the facts were not known and that it was not certain that an abortion may not have requested.
“Yet no such caution was exercised in her original Irish Times report where it was suggested to the world that an Irish hospital had allowed a mother to die because a Catholic ethos supposedly wouldn’t allow an abortion,” Ui Bhriain told LifeSiteNews.com.
“Journalists have a responsibility to ensure that the reader understands when matters are factual and when they are uncorroborated. Yet the Irish Times tossed that responsibility aside in order to force abortion into the centre of this tragic case concerning a miscarriage and septicaemia.”
“As leading medical experts have pointed this case had very little to do with abortion, yet the headlines around the world became more lurid by the moment,” she added.
Ui Bhriain noted that in her Observer article, Holland “clearly understood the global importance of the story”.
“That makes the sensationalist headline and the reporting in the previous article in the Irish Times reprehensible in my view,” she said.

 
karrie
No Party Affiliation
#18
At this point i'll wait for the investigation to sort it out, not the media.
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

This alone is very telling, and it the silence is deafening with how this has been ignored in this thread

If a termination becomes a life-saving procedure it should not need to be 'requested'! It should be offered and strongly suggested by the doctor. The patient should be the one to refuse if they so choose not have to request life-saving measures and be denied.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Generally a doctor is required to do whatever is in his power to save a life. If a person is not capable of giving consent (coma) he/she is deemed to have consented unless there is a clear instruction not to such as a DNR.

That makes sense, one should always take the option that can be reversed! -
 
Kreskin
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

This alone is very telling, and it the silence is deafening with how this has been ignored in this thread

Not unlike the media and 'late term' abortion. No one gets a late term abortion for any reason except an extreme medical case, yet the spin put on it from the media creates the impression that it's another form of regular birth control.
 
CanIrish
No Party Affiliation
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by WLDBView Post

Just because its the law doesnt make it right. If saving a life means breaking the law, then it should be done. A doctor losing a practice or having some jail time is nothing compared to death.

clearly you are not a doctor.... how is life is your imaginary world??

Quote: Originally Posted by PoliticalNickView Post

If a termination becomes a life-saving procedure it should not need to be 'requested'! It should be offered and strongly suggested by the doctor. The patient should be the one to refuse if they so choose not have to request life-saving measures and be denied.

Which there were prepared to do, the complication was that the fetus (17 weeks) still had a heartbeat and they could not do anything until the heartbeat stopped, under current Irish law the child was alive and could not be killed by the doctors.

(I am not arguing in favor or against, I am just stating the fact, so all the BS statements about of what the doctors should have or shouldn't have done mean nothing, they acted within the law as it currently stands.)
 
SLM
No Party Affiliation
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by CanIrishView Post

It does not matter.. if she did or did not request the abortion the point is that under our current laws the doctors did what they could do within the law.

This is not about blaming the doctors and nurses; it is not fair to hold them accountable for acting within the law. Even if she did request it, the law would prevent them from doing so.

It is the law that needs to be changed, and this needs to be done through a referendum, the government is tossing this around inquiries because they do not want to deal with the real issue and that is actually make a stand.

This country has a very strong history being controlled by the catholic church so it is hard to shake off some of our old ways.

It absolutely does matter. When there is embellishment, half-truths, and complete un-truths in a published 'news report' how can any of the report be taken at face value? How can we be sure what this woman actually died of? Can we be certain whether an abortion would have even potentially saved her life? For that matter how can we know that the doctor didn't suggest it (irrespective of law) and she didn't vehemently refuse?

This thread, this entire story is no longer about a woman who has died. It is about the lack of integrity in journalism today and agenda driven sensationalism that passes for 'news reporting'. I don't care which side of the abortion or the religious debate anyone may happen to come down on, that is what this is all now about.
 
Nuggler
#24
Living in Canada, it's really hard to read this and believe it happened.

Very sad when mythological beliefs trump life.

Fu ck Christmas.
 

Similar Threads

78
Woman dies after brutal beating
by Locutus | Jan 23rd, 2013
0
Alberta woman dies in Beaverton, ON
by L Gilbert | Aug 13th, 2012
38
White Woman Denied Fed Govt Job Because She Is White
by dumpthemonarchy | Jul 27th, 2010
no new posts