Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Agreed on the first, the second is religious discrimination which is a form of tyranny.

Since when is "not giving special privileges to a religious organization" tyranny?

You singled out one religion/special interest group.

If it were a universal policy, I'd be OK with it... OR, they could strip funding and or "special privileges" from the hospital specifically?

The doctors were working inside the framework of the law- they couldn't abort the fetus because the governments of the last two decades have procrastinated on legislating to allow this sort of procedure.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Agreed on the first, the second is religious discrimination which is a form of tyranny.

Since when is "not giving special privileges to a religious organization" tyranny?

You singled out one religion/special interest group.

No, I want ALL religions stripped of their special privileges. This one is just a more urgent issue because, unlike other religious organizations, it engages in morally repulsive behavior like abandoning women to die painfully and shielding and enabling known child rapists to protect themselves from public embarrassment.

Oh and this isn't a "catholic" hospital. It's a state hospital. It's just that the Catholic church had for a long time too much sway in the affairs of the Irish state, and ran health and education for a long time. That's still in the instituational memory. Or in the case of education, mostly the same.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Agreed on the first, the second is religious discrimination which is a form of tyranny.

Since when is "not giving special privileges to a religious organization" tyranny?

You singled out one religion/special interest group.

No, I want ALL religions stripped of their special privileges. This one is just a more urgent issue because, unlike other religious organizations, it engages in morally repulsive behavior like abandoning women to die painfully and shielding and enabling known child rapists to protect themselves from public embarrassment.

And not cutting Islam at the same time? See the problem?

Ideally, all religions, all special support groups and all charities etc should be cut from government funding. Let them fund themselves.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Agreed on the first, the second is religious discrimination which is a form of tyranny.

Since when is "not giving special privileges to a religious organization" tyranny?

You singled out one religion/special interest group.

No, I want ALL religions stripped of their special privileges. This one is just a more urgent issue because, unlike other religious organizations, it engages in morally repulsive behavior like abandoning women to die painfully and shielding and enabling known child rapists to protect themselves from public embarrassment.

You really do kind of need to get a grip there.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
And not cutting Islam at the same time? See the problem?

When Islam gets the same level of state support as the Catholic church despite its morally horrible behavior I'll consider removing its state support an equal priority.

 Chongara wrote:

 NELS1031 wrote:
Are we 100% sure that having the abortion would have saved her?

The UK is having a problem with ESBL e.coli, which is more drug resistant then MRSA (staph infection) and causes blood poisoning. Both of which were listed in her autopsy. Would removing the fetus magically have cured the infection already present in the victim?

Yeah. I think that's what we should focus on. The chance she might have still died had the doctors helped her. I think that's more than enough to justify the fact they didn't lift a finger. In fact we should give them a medal for saving the life that fetus. Wait...

Please highlight which part of my statement mentions any justification for what the doctors did, or didn't do.

My issue is that this tragedy is being framed in the headlines that she died solely because she was refused an abortion. The blood infection gets a passing mention and then focuses on abortion laws and such.

 NELS1031 wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 NELS1031 wrote:
Are we 100% sure that having the abortion would have saved her?

The UK is having a problem with ESBL e.coli, which is more drug resistant then MRSA (staph infection) and causes blood poisoning. Both of which were listed in her autopsy. Would removing the fetus magically have cured the infection already present in the victim?

Yeah. I think that's what we should focus on. The chance she might have still died had the doctors helped her. I think that's more than enough to justify the fact they didn't lift a finger. In fact we should give them a medal for saving the life that fetus. Wait...

Please highlight which part of my statement mentions any justification for what the doctors did, or didn't do.

My issue is that this tragedy is being framed in the headlines that she died solely because she was refused an abortion. The blood infection gets a passing mention and then focuses on abortion laws and such.

Yeah... blood infection is very serious gak.

It's not apparent (unless I misread the article) when she was infected.

For a significant amount of cases, depending on the infective agent...once it reaches the blood, your a goner.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
For a significant amount of cases, depending on the infective agent...once it reaches the blood, your a goner.

Yeah... bad stuff...

It's like the 2nd in leading causes of death in non-heart attack ICU patients.

 Mr Hyena wrote:
For a significant amount of cases, depending on the infective agent...once it reaches the blood, your a goner.

In which case, I really wonder at what stage of her hospital stay she was infected. I mean, obviously if she was playing host from the get go, yeah, not doing an abortion (legal or otherwise) probably wouldn't have helped her, but if she were infected after she was deep into the miscarriage process?? who knows?



It's one thing that always bothers me about the over the top, ardent pro-lifers, it seems that many of them are against abortion at any stage or cost, regardless if they lose a valuable and contributing member of society. I mean, people who really know me, know that I am somewhat a pro-lifer in that I think they shouldn't be giving abortions to just anyone, but this definitely would have been a case I'd be OK with.

I've not known any pro lifer that says no abortion to save the life of the mother as policy.

 Frazzled wrote:
I've not known any pro lifer that says no abortion to save the life of the mother as policy.

it may be putting words into the mouths of people, but I'd hazard a guess that some of those "legitimate rape" idiots may be some. But that is another thread, so hopefully we don't drag this too much off topic.

That's an incredibly sad and disturbing article. A couple of things I took note of;

She presented with backpain and an ongoing miscarriage--which leads me to believe she was experiencing a septic induced miscarriage
Due to the state recognizing the fetal heartbeat, it is very likely she was denied more aggressive treatment for sepsis that would have endangered the fetus (antibiotics, completing the miscarriage, etc.)

Anyone that looks over a patient's chart and says "Sorry, this is a Catholic country" while a young woman experiences continuous contractions--during a diagnosed miscarriage--while fighting septicemia--should not be practicing medicine. Period.

And if you feel uncomfortable with that assertion--imagine being in a foreign country, watching your loved one die from a possibly preventable death--to be told that her treatment would be withheld because the moon was not in the correct phase and it may anger Ta'lab.


I would be interested in seeing the medical records--and the results of this inquiry. Considering they (accurately) diagnosed her with a miscarriage--I fail to see what leg they will have to stand on. Just disgusting.

 NELS1031 wrote:

The UK is having a problem with ESBL e.coli, which is more drug resistant then MRSA (staph infection) and causes blood poisoning. Both of which were listed in her autopsy. Would removing the fetus magically have cured the infection already present in the victim?

It was mentioned in her cause of death, thats not to say that it was the cause of her septicaemia. ESBLs are fairly common these days, especially in hospital patients (and in people with contact with India) yet ESBL producing e.coli doesn't really mean much unless it is actually causing an infection. People get excitied about it because it is hard to treat.

Its entirely possible, even likely, that the foetus was the source of her septicaema. Or that it created the conditions which allowed septicaemia to develop.

Ireland is rapidly losing its catholicism though, eventually it will fully join the 21st century.

 Mr Hyena wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Mr Hyena wrote:
Agreed on the first, the second is religious discrimination which is a form of tyranny.

Since when is "not giving special privileges to a religious organization" tyranny?

You singled out one religion/special interest group.

No, you misunderstood. The laws and culture in Ireland single/d out one religion/special interest group for special treatment and with inappropriate privilege and influence over laws and policies. He was advocating that this unjust and dangerous privilege be removed.

It sounds to me like the Irish don't like abortion. Unless I am mistaken that there is a democracy rather than a theocracy there.

 Manchu wrote:
It sounds to me like the Irish don't like abortion. Unless I am mistaken that there is a democracy rather than a theocracy there.

How does it being a democracy make even the slightest bit of difference here?

Because, Its the right of the voters to shoot it down if they dont like it. It is a democracy.

Erm... we still don't know what happened.

I wonder if they tested for Sepsis after the first day, when she was miscarriaging?

Infection Control should've been monitoring that.

Because, once you go into sepsis shock, what happens is that your blood pressure drops so much, that you'd get organ failures due to lack of blood saturation.

When this happens, you literally have minutes.

And even then, if you do pull out... you still have infected blood that requires really aggressive spectrum of anti-biotics. Alot of times, you'll get ARDS (infected lungs)... which can be a doozy.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Because, Its the right of the voters to shoot it down if they dont like it.

No it isn't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Erm... we still don't know what happened.

Yes we do. We know that she was in the middle of a miscarriage, and an abortion that might have saved her was denied by religious idiots because the fetus (which had zero chance of survival) still had a heartbeat, and then the decision was justified with a statement confirming that abortion can not be allowed even if denying it kills the mother and the fetus. There is no ambiguity about anything that matters here.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
I've not known any pro lifer that says no abortion to save the life of the mother as policy.

it may be putting words into the mouths of people, but I'd hazard a guess that some of those "legitimate rape" idiots may be some. But that is another thread, so hopefully we don't drag this too much off topic.

Those legitimate rape types are 1) men; 2) idiots; 3) see #2.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Because, Its the right of the voters to shoot it down if they dont like it. It is a democracy.

Exactly. Like I am telling the seceshers on another board, use your right to vote. Fight within the system you traitorous dogs. Then I mention something about hoping Sherman burns your house down, and it kind of goes downhill from there...

Didn't we just have a guy like a week or two ago that told us that stuff like this never happens and that it is an invention of people who just want to abort fetuses, and then held Ireland up as the example that works just fine as a country that doesn't allow abortion and doesn't have an exception for the health of the mother?

 Peregrine wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Erm... we still don't know what happened.

Yes we do. We know that she was in the middle of a miscarriage, and an abortion that might have saved her was denied by religious idiots because the fetus (which had zero chance of survival) still had a heartbeat, and then the decision was justified with a statement confirming that abortion can not be allowed even if denying it kills the mother and the fetus. There is no ambiguity about anything that matters here.

Now before jumping down my throat, do you have any idea what sepsis is and how it's contracted?

1) What we don't know is if she was monitored for infection. She was miscarriaging and may have been breached.... THAT definately requires constant observation (that's SOP here in the states and I would find it hard to believe that they didn't do this)

2) She could've been sepsis before the 21st... but, we won't know.

3) For the record, if the Doc states that's there's no chance for the baby to survive, then perform the abortion.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It sounds to me like the Irish don't like abortion. Unless I am mistaken that there is a democracy rather than a theocracy there.

How does it being a democracy make even the slightest bit of difference here?

I'll leave that for you to meditate on.

 d-usa wrote:
Didn't we just have a guy like a week or two ago that told us that stuff like this never happens and that it is an invention of people who just want to abort fetuses, and then held Ireland up as the example that works just fine as a country that doesn't allow abortion and doesn't have an exception for the health of the mother?

Did you not take geography in school? Ireland is a separate country. Other countries have Sharia law, yet I am told not to worry about that either.

 Peregrine wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Because, Its the right of the voters to shoot it down if they dont like it.

No it isn't.

It is if it's direct democracy, if it's representative democracy then not so much.

 whembly wrote:
Now before jumping down my throat, do you have any idea what sepsis is and how it's contracted?

The details of that don't matter. Even if it was only a 0.00000000001% chance that the fetus was the problem and an abortion would save her life you still give the abortion.

3) For the record, if the Doc states that's there's no chance for the baby to survive, then perform the abortion.

Have you been paying attention at all here? Of course that's the sensible thing, but it's illegal in Ireland. That's the whole point of this thread.

 Manchu wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
It sounds to me like the Irish don't like abortion. Unless I am mistaken that there is a democracy rather than a theocracy there.

How does it being a democracy make even the slightest bit of difference here?

I'll leave that for you to meditate on.

IOW, you'll make a spam post just for the sake of posting instead of contributing something constructive to the discussion.

 Cheesecat wrote:
It is if it's direct democracy, if it's representative democracy then not so much.

Direct vs. representative is irrelevant. Neither kind of democracy grants the right to vote that people should be left to die painfully and senselessly because your god demands it.

 Peregrine wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Because, Its the right of the voters to shoot it down if they dont like it.

No it isn't.

My Google-fu says otherwise. It is a Parliamentary Democracy.