I agree. And, I can't imagine that inserting the law into such situations would help either the fetus or the pregnant woman.
Translation... You cannot find evidence to support your claim that Savita would have died even after an abortion. Even Catholic Voice does not go that far (they acknowledge that there is support for BOTH possibilities). Maybe you can try again when you find some evidence to support your claim, or admit that it could have saved her life.
It doesn't which is why i am against abortion laws. Ireland did have a higher maternal mortality rate but this was s disguised by poor and covert record keeping. It was obvious something was very fishy when they were claiming a maternal mortality rate of near zero - and we all wish it would be that low = but there are some situations where we cannot save the woman The situation in Ireland was more complex than is suggested. There was restrictions on medical personnel other than the law. If they performed an abortion - for any reason they risked deregistration or at minimum lengthy investigations so few were done
Butting in here. Yes, she would. No, why would it? She could have had a termination, she would have had a termination anywhere else in the UK ,and she certainly should have had one She died because they could not treat the infection without killing the foetus. In did in that case.
Well apparently the Irish medical community and court system disagrees with your crystal ball too. Because 10-15 women die every year getting abortions in the US. Yes, legal ones, not the rusty coat hanger kind. Antibiotics don't kill a fetus, but the medical ineptitude in this case killed both of them. Neither the mother, nor the infant, would have died if she had been treated correctly. At least not from that particular infection. Again, this is all in the report from the courts and the medical inquest. Don't argue with me, go argue with them.
She could have died from all kinds of things, of course we'll never know. We'll never know because these doctors killed both of them before we could find out.
What on earth do you mean by "overturning" an amendment? It cannot be done. It would require the adoption of a countermanding amendment and isn't something in the offing. Why even bother discussing this?
Because abortion is illegal in Ireland...sheesh. Out of almost one million. . Look, you obviously don't have a clue. A ruptured membrane is very dangerous, which is why pregnant women are told to go to hospital immediately their waters break. https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000512.htm You'll notice that only if there is no sign of infection are antibiotics useful for preventing infection. It's not the first time Ireland has been in trouble for preventing women accessing abortion http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/world-europe-11342247 She died of septicaemia. You don't have a clue. There was no infant, but an unviable foetus, which was shamefuly given priority over the woman's life And again. This is Ireland. I'm arguing with you for blindly supporting them.
No, it's not, it's just "well regulated". How many die from not getting an abortion? Yeah I'm pretty sure antibiotics can do more than just prevent an infection. The doctors failed to do their jobs. Again, all in the report, again, backed up by their courts. I'm sure it bothers them greatly. She died of "medical misadventure". She died because of inept doctors. By blind do you mean going by the medical findings and court cases instead of my tear ducts?
And yet the staff had never had a problem treating sepsis in people who were NOT pregnant... I wonder what could have been different about this case... Oh that's right... they concentrated on saving the fetus instead of saving their patient. According to this article: https://thinkprogress.org/ireland-h...d-a-dying-womans-life-8ecf9fba3b81#.7u9qeaqsq There was another case like Savita's about a year later, but this time the staff performed the abortion and saved the woman's life. This is how we learn things. We find cases that are similar and ask ourselves what aspect was different... and led to a different outcome. I do agree that we can never be sure if Savita would have survived after an abortion, or certain that this other woman would have died without an abortion. I am saying it would be wrong for you to claim Savita would have died anyway and it would be wrong for me to claim that this second woman would certainly have died without an abortion. Strange and unexpected things happen, and even the attending physicians cannot always predict the results... so in the end it should be the woman (the only actual person whose life is on the line) who balances the advice of the doctors against her personal fears and value system to decide what should happen to her body (and incidentally to the fetus that she has been supporting).
At the time of Savitas death it was illegal and highly restricted World wide there are around 68,000 deaths from unsafe abortions (read illegal) with a further 5 million suffering long term health complications https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/ WHO has slightly lower stats http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/unsafe_abortion/magnitude/en/ Remembering that these statistics are conservative because they only record reported cases in countries where it is illegal Now as to the rest of your points A) Savita had ESBL - difficult to treat with antibiotics B) Antibiotics do not work if the source of infection is not removed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar "All management options" would include completing the already started miscarriage in a timely manner. The fetus had 0 chance of survival.
The medical staff chose not to intervene in an appropriate manner - that was abortion of the dead foetus What part of that is problematic for you? I have asked before why you would want a woman to carry a dead foetus and have been ignored
I'd suggest you read the "key causal factors" Zeffy just posted above, that you "liked". The infection itself, which wasn't diagnosed, is what caused the miscarriage in the first place. If it had been diagnosed, the miscarriage probably wouldn't have happened, an abortion would have been unnecessary, and the woman would still be alive. Again, I refer you to the facts that the government, the court system, and the medical inquest discovered. The fetus did not cause the infection, and aborting the fetus would not have cured the infection once it was present. Everything else you are posting is simply noise, and a desire to boil this down to "wanted abortion, didnt get, omg died". That's not what happened but keep smacking into the windmill.
Guess what caused the child to die, and then the mother? It's bolded above, and is the thing she was not diagnosed with (but should have been) in the first place. Guess what would have happened if they had treated the infection before the miscarriage? Life.
Over 300 women die in the US every year from pregnancy/delivery complications. Canada has one death per about 1.3 million abortions. Doesn't say much for your medical system if you have 10+ per year with there being about 1.2 million legal abortions per year.
But...but....what if it saves just one life!!!1!1!! - - - Updated - - - Except I do, because it's in the report. Do you think I wrote the report? I'm pretty sure cured infections don't kill people.
Bovine excrement. The report cannot determine if she would have lived or died. Even if she had the abortion, they can't say, only that she would have had a better chance of living.
And nowhere in any of the reports does it say that the miscarriage was avoidable. There are many factors which point to the fact that the miscarriage was unavoidable and in fact it may have been that the foci for the infection was a placental infarct or similar issue. Unequivocally all of the reports say that once she miscarried then an abortions should have been carried out without delay She had ESBL which would have made antibiotic treatment problematic
Reference: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-many-die-from-medical-mistakes-in-us-hospitals/# Now comes a study in the current issue of the Journal of Patient Safety that says the numbers may be much higher 2014 between 210,000 and 440,000 patients each year who go to the hospital for care suffer some type of preventable harm that contributes to their death, the study says. Any surgical procedure involves some risk. Even staying locked in your house involves risk (more than 18,000 Americans die every year from injuries that take place in the home). Get real someday.
