SkyscraperCity Forum banner

Woman dies after abortion request 'refused'

49K views 187 replies 25 participants last post by  Paul_from_Dublin 
#1 ·
The death of a woman who was 17 weeks pregnant is the subject of two investigations at University Hospital Galway in the Republic of Ireland.

Savita Halappanavar's family said she asked several times for her pregnancy to be terminated because she had severe back pain and was miscarrying.

Her family claimed it was refused because there was a foetal heartbeat. She died on 28 October.

An autopsy carried out two days later found she had died from septicaemia.

Ms Halappanavar, who was 31, was a dentist.

Her husband, Praveen, told the Irish Times that medical staff said his wife could not have an abortion because Ireland was a Catholic country and the foetus was still alive.
Substantial risk

University Hospital Galway is to carry out an internal investigation. It said it could not comment on individual cases but would be cooperating fully with the coroner's inquest into Ms Halappanavar's death.

The Health Service Executive has launched a separate investigation.

Abortion is illegal in the Republic except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother.

The Irish government in January established a 14-member expert group to make recommendations based on a 2010 European Court of Human Rights judgment that the state failed to implement existing rights to lawful abortion where a mother's life was at risk.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health said that the group was due to report back to the Minister for Health James Reilly shortly.

"The minister will consider the group's report and subsequently submit it to government," the spokesperson said.
Funeral

Ms Halappanavar and her husband, an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, are originally from India.

Mr Halappanavar is still in India after accompanying his wife's body there for her funeral.

He told the Irish Times: "Savita was really in agony. She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby.

"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 foetal heartbeat we can't do anything'."

The Galway Roscommon University Hospitals Group said it extended its sympathies to Ms Halappanavar's family.

In a statement the group said its inquiry into Ms Halappanavar's death had not started yet because the hospital was waiting to consult with the family.

"In general in relation to media enquiries about issues where there may be onward legal action, we must reserve our position on what action we may take if assertions about a patient's care are published and we cannot speak for individual doctors or other medical professionals if a report were to name or identify any," it said.
Absolutely disgraceful!

The abortion laws in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are utterly illogical and in need of reform. It seems, though hardly surprising, pro-life and anti-abortion groups have been completely silent on this case......go figure!
 
#43 ·
Don't think Savita Halappanavar's husband is doing himself any favors here.
:bash:

Really? How? If I was in his situation I would be doing the same thing.

In sense history repeating itself here. Refusing to hold an independent public enquiry because its 'too expensive', even though it is most definitely the right thing to do?

Remind me how we got into this mess in the first place?
 
#40 ·
Not really, he has a very good point.

He said Mr Halappanavar wants an independent inquiry, with oral hearings held in public, a full discovery of records and witnesses called in under oath and cross examined in public.

Mr O'Donnell said: "Any inquiry conducted by the HSE does not meet with his approval. He has no faith in the HSE.

“It's important to remember that he lost his wife while under the care of the HSE", he added.
I wouldn't want them taking the case either. I'd rather have a wholly independent inquiry. I'm fully supportive of his position, as many would be.
 
#41 · (Edited)
Still refusing to co-operate with the inquiry, wants an independent public inquiry, says does not trust HSE.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/1122/1224326953009.html

And the president has broken his mandate of office. He is not allowed speak against the advice of government - is it too much for common sense? Does he understand his role? He does not criticise the government. I wonder what will be made of this today.

The husband gave a very good interview to RTÉ - first on Irish television last night. He is an impressive person. Calm, collected and speaks with clarity given the circumstances. However if he is unwilling to co-operate what else can be done other than scrap the inquiries. There won't be a full public inquiry because of the history of expense and time of such inquiries in the past and the aversion to making lawyers wallets more heavy which angers the public.

Video: http://www.rte.ie/news/av/2012/1121/media-3439376.html#search=true&query=Savita Halappanavar
 
#42 ·
Pretty interesting:

Key recommendations by expert group for provision of lawful terminations revealed
Updated: 00:26, Friday, 23 November 2012



RTÉ's Prime Time has exclusively seen a key section of an expert group report to address the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the A, B and C v Ireland case.

The report provides a number of options on how to implement the European Court of Human Rights ruling which requires the Government to provide legal certainty in this area.

The options reviewed are statutory and non-statutory.

The Taoiseach has promised a decision based on the report.

It outlines two main approaches to implementation: non-statutory and statutory.

The report highlights the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

Non-Statutory implementation

Option one: guidelines

The only option which is non-statutory is the introduction of guidelines which would not have binding force.

This option is unlikely to satisfy our European obligations, ie the Committee of Minsters at the Council of Europe.

All other options would require some form of legislation - either by way of new legislation or amending existing legislation.

Statutory implementation

Option two: Health Minister issues regulations

The report says that "the minsters could not issue regulations without being given the power to do so by enabling legislation.

For this reason "it is not likely to prove a speedier or superior solution than the other legislative options."

Option three: Introduction of legislation alone

The third option is for legislation alone to be introduced.

The advantage of this is that it would allow the Oireachtas the "opportunity to discuss and vote on all the relevant details of the proposed legislation".

The report says that the second advantage would be that "access to lawful termination of pregnancy in Ireland would be put on a statutory and therefore a more secure footing".

The disadvantages of this it that "process of drafting and democratic scrutiny is likely to take a considerable period of time"

Another disadvantage is that "postulating all the details of the assessment and review process in primary legislation might be too rigid an approach.

Even minor changes that might arise following implementation or in light of scientific advances would require full scrutiny and futher passage through the Houses of the Oireachtas.

Both the introduction of Health Minister regulations or legislation will fulfill the requirements set out in the judgement in A,B and C v Ireland.

Option four: Introduction of legislation plus regulations

The final option highlighted in the report is the introduction of legislation plus regulations.

The advantage of having legislation plus regulation is that the role of the Minister for Health "would come under less scrutiny in relation to procedural matters as these would be in the legislation."

Another advantage is that regulations could be amended relatively easily.

This would facilitate changes in the clinical practice, scientific advances and any challenges arising from their implementation.

The disadvantage is the same as outlined in relation to legislation alone, ie "due to the nature of this legislation, the process of drafting and democratic scrutiny is likely to take a considerable period of time."

Option five: New legislation or an amendment to Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Existing legislation under subsections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 abortion is criminalised.

The repeal or replacement of the act would provide clarity and certainty to the law.

It would comply with Ireland's obligations as set out under the ECHR ruling.

Article 40.3.3 would be adhered to by a modern statement of the law on abortion including measures consistent with the respect to be accorded to the unborn.

The disadvantage of this would be the drafting of the legislation plus the democratic scrutiny is expected to take a considerable period of time.

Story from RTÉ News:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1122/expert-group-information-revealed.html
 
#44 ·
Husband taking case to European Court of Human Rights




Halappanavar family to proceed with European Court case
Updated: 17:07, Thursday, 29 November 2012




Praveen Halappanavar has given instructions to his solicitor Gerard O'Donnell to proceed with an application to the European Court of Human Rights.

Savita Halappanavar’s family had earlier warned they would make such an application if Minister for Health James Reilly did not agree to a public inquiry into the circumstances of her death by today.

Mr Halappanavar’s solicitor told RTÉ News that in the absence of a full public inquiry his client feels he has no option but to seek legal redress.

The Health Service Executive and Health Information and Quality Authority are both investigating the circumstances surrounding the care and treatment Ms Halappanvar received at University Hospital Galway.

Mr Reilly said when he receives the reports of the two investigations he will take whatever action is needed.

The HIQA investigation will assess whether the services provided complied with the National Standards for Safer Better Healthcare and national and international evidence of what is known to achieve best outcomes.

The HSE is carrying out its clinical review into the death, even though Ms Halappanavar's husband Praveen said he had no confidence in the HSE.

Ms Halappanavar died on 28 October following a miscarriage.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1129/savitas-family-european-court-case.html
 
#46 ·
Red C poll: majority demand X case legislation
17:00, 1 December 2012 by Post Reporter

A new opinion poll by Red C and The Sunday Business Post indicates a large majority in favour of legislating for the X case. The poll also reveals a sharp fall in support for Fine Gael.

...

Summary of the poll's findings on each possible option for abortion law:

"Legislate for the X case, which means allowing abortion where the mother's life is threatened, including by suicide." Support: 85%

"A constitutional amendment to limit the X case, by excluding a threat of suicide as a grounds for abortion, but still allowing abortion, where the mother's life is threatened outside of suicide." Support: 63%

"A constitutional amendment to extend the right to abortion to all cases where the health of the mother is seriously threatened and also in cases of rape." Support: 82%

"A constitutional amendment to allow for legal abortion in any case where a woman requests it." Support: 36%

.....

STATE OF THE PARTIES

Fine Gael: 28% (-6)
Labour: 14% (+1)
Fianna Fáil: 20% (+1)
Sinn Fein: 17% (no change)
Independents/others: 21% (+4)

.....

Red C interviewed a random sample of 1,003 adults aged 18+ by telephone between November 26 and 28.

.....

For more detailed results and analysis of how the poll was conducted, see tomorrow's digital edition or print edition of The Sunday Business Post.

Sunday Business Post
...
 
#47 ·
The Bishops have come all out against against abortion legislation under any circumstances this week.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1219/1224327998860.html?via=rel

The government has to be very careful with how it legislates so that the door is not left open to "abortion on demand". That's the problem with having the word suicide in legislation. Because of the impossibility of determining the risk of suicide of the mother it means that her death would be a possibility but the termination of an unborn child would be a certainty.

This is going to get rough!
 
#48 ·
Since when do the bishops think they have the right to interfere?

You'd think they realise that their opinion carries no merit any longer and I doubt many people are going to take kindly be being lectured by an institution that raped and brutalised generations of young boys and girls.

I think the bishops would be wise to keep their mouths shut on the issue.
 
#49 ·
They have a right to their opinions - not to dictate. They don't speak for the majority of catholics or people in Ireland on abortion IMO to the extent that the vast majority want limited and regulated access to abortion when a woman's life is in danger.

They are also pissed off about the government criticising the vatican and expelling the papal nuncio.

Check this out

http://www.independent.ie/national-...h-revenge-over-vatican-criticism-3332412.html


I see a major confrontation brewing.
 
#52 ·
They can seek revenge all they want, they're nothing more than a group of self-serving child molesters that have done nothing but protect their own. There isn't a more discredited institution in Europe than the Irish Roman Catholic Church.

As for rape....that case is the precursor of Case X, I fully expect rape to be grounds for abortion.
 
#54 ·
It's easy to get around it. Woman is raped and she wants an abortion, she can just claim to have suicidal thoughts. If she's denied and then kills herself then yet more scandal envelopes the Irish government and more shame for the Irish people.

I'm pretty such there will be a provision for rape victims.

You didn't expect legislation on matter a few weeks ago, you were wrong then and you're wrong now.
 
#55 ·
There is no legislation. Not till next year. Mark my words this is only the start. There will be no grounds for rape. Absolute cert. Many in Fine Gael will struggle to live with just suicide in legislation for goodness sake. I expect some to fall overboard with even that. And wait till the catholic lobby gets going.
 
#57 ·
Labour are the minority party in gov. Of course they are very liberal. But they have got themselves in a situation where they don't want a general election over something like this because they know they face a hammering if an election was tomorrow. FG are in a far stronger position electorally. I don't see Labour forcing this issue of abortion because the blueshirts will just walk out.
 
#59 ·
I'm pro-choice....not pro-abortion. There's a difference. If a woman wants an abortion then that's her choice, I have no right to tell her she can't have it and nor does anyone else. Until the foetus is viable outside the womb then the woman has the final say.

I would like NI to be brought into line with the rest of the UK and I see that happening but only after a legal challenge. Because like all so called 'moral decisions' our politicians lack the balls and foresight to implement reform and leave the hard choices to the courts.
 
#60 ·
If a woman wants an abortion then that's her choice
Firstly I agree on many things politicians are not brave enough but I have highlighted this because this is abortion on demand you seem to want on the basis a woman has a choice.

A woman also has responsibility. I don't want a situation where if a woman willingly has unprotected consensual sex (note I am not talking about rape or incest) and she becomes pregnant that she can just have an abortion like purchasing everyday items in a convenience shop. We (as in "the west") make life too easy for the feckless and irresponsible - and you want to make it even easier? What about a woman's responsibility for her actions? Or does that come in to this for you at all?
 
#64 ·
odlum833 said:
I personally think they should carry the child.

On the one hand you say you don't want abortion as a form of birth control but then on the other you say "what if she had unintentionally unprotected sex"? The problem there is that would be a loophole to be abused. Anyone could just walk in to a doctor and say "I made a mistake" - and then have an abortion.

I am not supporting the catholic church stance btw just in case anyone thinks that. I am saying that women have to be responsible for their own actions. I don't believe it should be "I made a mistake" - "it's grand I will have an abortion - I have a medical card anyway!":nuts:

Is that what you want? It's a very slippery slope to just that. That's just my opinion anyway. I want people to take responsibility for their own actions.
I'm sure you do.....but your morality has no place in this. You aren't being asked to carry the foetus, give birth to it, feed it, clothe it and care for and finance it for at least the next 18 years. So yes of course you think she should carry it.

How very judgemental of you, what gives you the right to say how a woman should live her life? If the shoe was on the other foot and men were the ones that got pregnant then abortion wouldn't even be an issue and therein lies the hypocrisy.
 
#65 · (Edited)
I'm sure you do.....but your morality has no place in this.
Morality? There is no morality at all in what I said. Therefore the rest of your point is void.

Common sense is how i'd take the point I made. Nothing to do with morality.

What you want is yet another easy way out of responsibility. If I get a woman laid and she agrees and the condom breaks and she gets pregnant I won't shirk my responsibility. Yet you give her the right to make that decision for me? She does not have that right. I would have rights as a potential father. Or maybe you think fathers don't have rights? Your point about finance really makes me laugh. You must be taking the piss surely? She is carrying the sprog so to hell with the father is it?

You need to think these things through.
 
#68 ·
In the majority of families the father is the main bread winner. That is why I find it laughable that you automatically say it's solely a woman's choice and use financial independence as one of your reasons because it doesn't stand up to fact. Families where the mother is the main income earner are still few and far between despite the progress over the last 2 decades.


You seem to have very lefty views on this and many subjects. There are more holes in your arguments than Swiss Cheese.

You are refusing to acknowledge potential loopholes in legislating for rape when it is blatantly obvious to everyone else. That's why there will be no legislation for rape. Simple.

You also go on and say women aren't going to use flimsy abortion laws to suit them. That may be the case for most women. I did not say having an abortion was easy for most women btw so you can stop misrepresenting what I am saying. You are incredibly naive about the small minority in society that I assure you abuse every system they can - and that's the problem with the left. You want to leave so many gaping holes in all sorts of legislation so it can be abused while in denial abuse takes place.

The difference between what I want and what you want is I want strong legislation and you want weak legislation to reach "abortion on demand" through the backdoor.
 
#70 ·
Yes in most families it is the male that earns the most. That does not change the situation for many women who are on their own. There are also families where another child might be one too many even with the father as the bread winner. What about them?

As you said there is a small minority out there that might abuse a system. Does that mean we just shouldn't bother with it at all? You sound like those who advocate getting rid of social welfare because a few abuse the system

''You want to leave so many gaping holes in all sorts of legislation so it can be abused while in denial abuse takes place''. I have not read something this ridiculous in quite a while. Where has anyone indicated they want flimsy abortion laws?

I do not want weak legislation to achieve abortion on demand. I want out right abortion on demand legislated for. Unfortunately that is not going to happen any time soon. What you seem to call ''strong'' legislation is what I would call budging ever so slightly towards the 21st century.
 
#71 · (Edited)
odlum833 said:
Yes absolutely it is but you missed the point. I meant that uniguy is referring to financial independence of the woman as a reason that she should have the sole choice. Fair enough but the fact is in most families the mother is not the principle income earner. That is what I meant. Therefore it's not reasonable to use that as a grounds like that.
You're confusing a woman in a relationship with one that had casual sex. Most women that are partnered or married very happily have children and abortion is incredibly rare. In those cases financial support generally isn't an issue. That of course assumes they can afford it, some can't and thus some have an abortion.

You seem to have some idealised fantasy where all woman that get pregnant have a hard working man at home to earn the money or a man that dumped his seed in her ready to step in as a white knight and support her. The reality is very different, it's those women I worry about.


Oh and I'm also not a leftist, have never voted for a leftist party in all my voting life. I'm a centrist, on some issues I'm really liberal and in others I'm conservative.

As for wanting weak legislation, what nonsense. I've advocated the same legislation that exists in Great Britain, it's hardly weak and nor has it resulted in millions getting an abortion. How utterly hyperbole and disingenuous of you.

As for your stance in relation to denying woman the right to an abortion after being raped, well that's just callous and an opinion utterly devoid of humanity. You'd rather prolong and intensify her agony by having her carry and give birth to a child she didn't want, one born as a result of one of the most emotionally damaging events that a woman can ever endure. But sure that's probably all her fault and should bear that responsibility in your eyes. If you truly believed otherwise then you'd support rape being a reason for abortion, but you haven't.
 
#72 ·
..

Savita Halappanavar jury returns unanimous medical misadventure verdict


Jury accepts nine recommendations from coroner




Praveen Halappanavar arriving at Galway County Hall for the final day of the inquest into the death of his wife Savita Halappanavar who died at Galway University Hospital last year. Photograph: Brenda Fitzsimons/The Irish Times

Fri, Apr 19, 2013, 15:26



The jury in the Savita Halappanaver inquest has returned a unanimous verdict of medical misadventure.

A medical misadventure verdict has no inference of civil liability in the case.

The jury was charged by the coroner Ciaran MacLoughlin this morning following approximately 40 minutes of legal argument.


The jury has also accepted nine recommendations outlined by Dr MacLoughlin this morning.

Dr McLoughlin said medical doctors who act in good faith but are found to have breached Medical Council guidelines on termination can be subjected to criminal sanctions and face “a path of ignominy and shame”.

He said the council should convey in its guidelines when a doctor is allowed to intervene to save the life of a woman by carrying out a termination.

This would remove the threat of fear and doubt from the profession as well as reassuring the public.

He said blood samples should be properly followed up, and protocols in relation to the management of sepsis should be followed in each hospital.

Nursing and medical notes should be kept separate and a modified early warning system for maternal patients should be introduced as soon as possible.

Dr MacLoughlin also called for early and effective communication with patients to ensure that treatment plans were understood and he said no additions should be made to the medical records of a patients who death is the subject of an official inquiry.

He pointed to a number of references to systems failure in the evidence, including the failure to chart observations of vital signs every four hours, a failure to pass on information about an elevated white cell count, an “inordinate delay” in reporting back on blood samples and issues relating to note-taking.

Speaking on his way into the inquest this morning, her widower Praveen Halappanavar said he was “still optimistic” of an outcome that would go some way to appeasing his concerns.

“I am still optimistic. The question that has always been in my mind is why Savita died.”

Irish Times

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/heal...nimous-medical-misadventure-verdict-1.1365716
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top