Irish Woman Dies When Denied Abortion

[Quiddity]

Then don't blame me for it, either.

No, it was a general statement.

 

[Storm]

Nah, I've been sort surfing for a while and have no inclination to go hunt it down at the moment. Besides, I'm not the one making the claim that the law may not be on their side. Your the one that wants to know, not me.

No, the Catholic opinion piece you used to support your own argument did. I just thought maybe you'd like to confirm.

I happen to be satisfied with Penguin's report that the law actually dictated the doctors' actions.

 

[Quiddity]

No it really isn't.
Chemotherapy or fallopian tube removal are acceptable, a D&C on a "living" fetus, even one that is dying, is not. PER DOCTRINE.

I thought I covered this already? Did you read the link and what I posted?

 

[Drolefille]

Articles about the law:
Doctors, others demand clearer Abortion Law

Irish gynecologists demanded Thursday that the government close a 20-year-old hole in the country’s abortion law that leaves them fearing prosecution if they abort a fetus to protect a woman’s life.

‘‘We would like to be able to practice medicine in a safe environment legally. The current situation is like a sword of Damocles hanging over us,’’ Dr. Peter Boylan of the Irish Institute of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said Thursday. ‘‘If we do something with a good intention, but it turns out to be illegal, the consequences are extremely serious for medical practitioners.’’

The law:

58. Every Woman, being with Child, who, with Intent to procure her own Miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, and whosoever, with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman, whether she be or be not with Child, shall unlawfully administer to her or cause to be taken by her any Poison or other noxious Thing, or shall unlawfully use any Instrument or other Means whatsoever with the like Intent, shall be guilty of [an offence], and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ..., to [imprisonment] for Life .... [8]

59. Whosoever shall unlawfully supply or procure any Poison or other noxious Thing, or any Instrument or Thing whatsoever, knowing that the same is intended to be unlawfully used or employed with Intent to procure the Miscarriage of any Woman, whether she be or be not with Child, shall be guilty of [an offence], and being convicted thereof shall be liable, ..., to [imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years].[9]

The Eighth Constitutional Amendment

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

The amendment to the 8th Amendment:

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.

 

[Quiddity]

No, the Catholic opinion piece you used to support your own argument did. I just thought maybe you'd like to confirm.

I happen to be satisfied with Penguin's report that the law actually dictated the doctors' actions.

It really doesn't matter as I'd support legal action if they were indeed negligent.

 

[Drolefille]

I thought I covered this already? Did you read the link and what I posted?

I did, what you posted agrees with the decision of the doctors NOT to terminate the pregnancy and to allow this woman to die.

 

[Storm]

Articles about the law:
Doctors, others demand clearer Abortion Law

Thanks for that. I didn't see any exceptions in there apart from "go to another country if you can manage."

 

[Quiddity]

Yes I believe you are wrong here. Roe v. Wade protects the choice to terminate a pregnancy, for any reason, only in the first trimester, when the embryo/fetus is not viable outside the womb and an abortion is safer than childbirth. After the first trimester, Roe v. Wade only protects choice in health risk situations. Otherwise states are free to pass laws regulating abortion as they see fit.

Ah ok, I see what you mean. However, what I'm talking about protects choice in a limited setting (to save the life of the mother).

 

[Drolefille]

Essentially there is no clear consensus in Irish law, so doctors cannot act without fear of being prosecuted. Not sued, prosecuted. In Irish law, as opposed to in Catholic doctrine, the life of the mother is supposed to be an acceptable reason for a termination. However, because an infection is not immediately threatening, and there was still a heartbeat it was in this huge gray area in the law that no one agrees on what it says.

They're stating they'll clarify it, but that is too late for this woman.

 

[Quiddity]

I did, what you posted agrees with the decision of the doctors NOT to terminate the pregnancy and to allow this woman to die.

No, it really doesn't. You need to go back and read. To be clear, this was a miscarriage not a direct abortion as most folks normally see it.

 

[Drolefille]

Thanks for that. I didn't see any exceptions in there apart from "go to another country if you can manage."

It's incredibly vague and they admit that. There is an acknowledgement that the woman has an equal right to live, so that's ... nice I guess.

Ah ok, I see what you mean. However, what I'm talking about protects choice in a limited setting (to save the life of the mother).

But which is not Catholic doctrine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, it really doesn't. You need to go back and read. To be clear, this was a miscarriage not a direct abortion as most folks normally see it.

It would have been a direct abortion if the doctors had saved her life.

... a direct abortion of a fetus that was doomed to die shortly anyhow, but a direct abortion nonetheless.

And it would therefore have been contrary to Catholic doctrine for them to have done it.

 

[Drolefille]

No, it really doesn't. You need to go back and read. To be clear, this was a miscarriage not a direct abortion as most folks normally see it.

No. The miscarriage was not complete. Due to the doctrine of double effect, the only thing they could POSSIBLY have done would have been something like a complete hysterectomy - which would remove the infection and the fetus only incidentally.

You cannot perform a D&C on a "living" fetus, even in the course of a miscarriage. Until the miscarriage was complete, and the fetus was dead, it was NOT acceptable to intervene. Please explain via Catholic doctrine how this situation lets you dodge the doctrine of double effect if you're so certain it does. It would have been a termination of a "living" fetus. Even if that fetus was dying.

 

[Quiddity]

No. The miscarriage was not complete. Due to the doctrine of double effect, the only thing they could POSSIBLY have done would have been something like a complete hysterectomy - which would remove the infection and the fetus only incidentally.

You cannot perform a D&C on a "living" fetus, even in the course of a miscarriage. Until the miscarriage was complete, and the fetus was dead, it was NOT acceptable to intervene. Please explain via Catholic doctrine how this situation lets you dodge the doctrine of double effect if you're so certain it does. It would have been a termination of a "living" fetus. Even if that fetus was dying.

This took 4 days. Sunday (first day) her cervix opened and it was then that they told her the baby would not make it. Even if it wasn't complete, they had already told her the baby wasn't going to make it.

 

[Storm]

This took 4 days. Sunday (first day) her cervix opened and it was then that they told her the baby would not make it. Even if it wasn't complete, they had already told her the baby wasn't going to make it.

That didn't answer her question. The fetus was still alive, which is why she asked for a termination.

 

[Quiddity]

That didn't answer her question. The fetus was still alive, which is why she asked for a termination.

Did she come in to get an abortion? Because I wasn't getting that impression. The doctor told her on the first day she was going to lose the baby even if it continued to be alive. Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that they shouldn't have done anything.

 

[Storm]

Did she come in to get an abortion? Because I wasn't getting that impression. The doctor told her on the first day she was going to lose the baby even if it continued to be alive. Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that they shouldn't have done anything.

What's that got to do with it? She asked for one.

 

[Drolefille]

Did she come in to get an abortion? Because I wasn't getting that impression. The doctor told her on the first day she was going to lose the baby even if it continued to be alive. Keep in mind that I'm not arguing that they shouldn't have done anything.

This does not change that because the baby was STILL ALIVE even though it was GOING to die, it would be against Catholic Doctrine to do a D&C as is now standard procedure in miscarriages to prevent infection.

 

[Quiddity]

What's that got to do with it? She asked for one.

But you are assuming that the state of the baby had nothing to do with her decision. Obviously she would choose to live, even more so if the baby was going to die anyhow.

 

[Storm]

But you are assuming that the state of the baby had nothing to do with her decision. Obviously she would choose to live, even more so if the baby was going to die anyhow.

No, I'm really not. I don't know how the hell you got that impression, but you're completely mistaken. Also, even if I weren't.... it's still irrelevant.