Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Decision in Miss D case
The High Court in Dublin today allowed Miss D, the young lady in the care of the HSE, to travel to England for an abortion. As noted here previously, Miss D’s baby is anacephalic, and has no chance of survival. Despite this, the State appointed a Barrister to represent the foetus’s rights, as it has a ‘right to life’ under the Irish constitution, even though it has no prospect of life.
Alliance for Choice spokeswoman Dr Mary Muldowney said: “Alliance for Choice asks how many more young women will be traumatised before Irish law recognises their human right to access abortion services safely and legally in their own country. Most of the stress that surrounds abortion for women from this country relates to the barriers that the current legal situation has erected around women`s ability to make choices based on what is right for them.”
Miss Fitz @ 06:46 PM
I’m glad the Irish legal system came to it’s senses.
Appointing legal representation for a foetus however ranks up with whatever third world country it was that forced a man to marry a goat after he was caught *cough* getting intimate with it.
Posted by on May 09, 2007 @ 08:06 PMIt was more the HSE that came to its senses, or rather was forced to by the court. It was the HSE that decided to ignore Miss D’s right to travel abroad for an abortion and (1)inform the gardai and (2) prevent a passport being issued. As the court said, there is absolutely no statutory or constitutional bar to her travelling abroad for an abortion and the HSE was behaving quite improperly. Of course the real issue is why she has to go out of Ireland for an abortion in the first place. See my two posts on the case.
Posted by on May 09, 2007 @ 08:41 PMYer Woman,
“Appointing legal representation for a foetus however ranks up with whatever third world country it was that forced a man to marry a goat after he was caught *cough* getting intimate with it.”And what would be your legal reasoning for this statement? I would have thought that considering the constitutional issues involved this was a necessary move.
Posted by on May 09, 2007 @ 08:56 PM“even though it has no prospect of life”
I thought the baby would be alive when born, then die shortly there after.
How long after birth is it before we are alive?
Posted by on May 09, 2007 @ 10:59 PMGoat fucking in this thread, sheep fucking in the last thread. Is it possible to discuss the issue without any animal shagging allegories?
It doesn’t appear that the High Court found anything new to decide on. Which means someone in the HSE has er, screwed the pooch. Goddammit.
Posted by on May 09, 2007 @ 11:55 PMWhen the “foetus” is born it will be a human being. The child may not have a very long life but it will be alive, Miss Fitz.
Your ignorance of such a basic and fundamental fact rather precludes you from having anything meaningful to contribute to the debate don’t you think?
Posted by on May 10, 2007 @ 12:50 AMGiven that you have now edited your original post to cover up your initial error would it not be common courtesy to acknowledge the fact?
Posted by on May 10, 2007 @ 03:25 AMHarry, is it possible for you to produce an opinion at all that doesn’t mention liberals ?
Posted by on May 10, 2007 @ 06:33 AMHarry Flashman
As the fetus is medically brain dead (i.e it has and will only have little beyond a brain stem) the Irish law is a complete ass.
Posted by on May 10, 2007 @ 06:49 AMEnough of a personal abuse harry, miss fitz has an opinion on the matter, which incidentally is shared by most right thinking people including me and she is entitled to air that opinion, particularly so as she is a blogger and thats what she is here to do - air her opinions.
Posted by on May 10, 2007 @ 07:16 AMI recall that earlier in the case the HSE was arguing that there was no case to let her go because she was not suicidal. To which I could only imagine replying: “but we’re working on it”
Posted by on May 10, 2007 @ 08:52 AMThere is no guarantee the child would be born alive. It’s hard to be delighted about an outcome in such horrid circumstances, but I am relieved that the responsible and compassionate decision was taken, even if under duress.
Alex - I thought the exact same thing.
Posted by on May 10, 2007 @ 09:52 AMWell said, Nick, femalepolitico, Alex and Animus. And I’m glad
Dr Declan Keane, The Master of the National Maternity Hospital, has called for the law to be changed to allow abortions to take place in Ireland where the foetus has no chance of living outside the womb.Dr Keane’s concern for post mortem facilities (so important to grieving famlies anxious to learn the medical cause of their loss, and the odds they might face another loss in any subsequent pregnancy) and post-abortion counselling is compassion in action.
from the RTÉ site:
Dr Keane said there were a handful of conditions which were incompatible with life, and anencephaly was one of these.
He said it would be preferable to be allowed to carry out the abortion in Ireland, because of the lack of post mortem facilities in many abortion facilities abroad.
Dr Keane said if the operations were carried out here, then post abortion counselling could also be offered.
He said his hospital sees between four to six cases of anencephaly each year.
Half of the women carried the baby to term, the other half sought a termination, he added.”
http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0510/abortion.html
Posted by on May 10, 2007 @ 10:18 AM**Harry, is it possible for you to produce an opinion at all that doesn’t mention liberals ?
Posted by Comrade Stalin on May 10, 2007 @ 08:33 AM**
That’s an odd comment as I never mentioned that word in either of the two posts posted above yours.Nor in this post either, so that’s three opinions on this thread alone, can’t you read properly CS?
**Enough of a personal abuse harry, **
There was no personal abuse, Miss Fitz made a factually incorrect statement, both I and Cahal pointed out her mistake, I elaborated by mentioning that someone so unfamiliar with the case shouldn’t really be posting on it.
Miss Fitz then changed the original post without acknowledging her original mistake, I am entitled to point this out as otherwise Cahal’s statement and mine look as if they relate to nothing in particular.
As regards personl abuse the implication of your post is that most people who don’t agree with you do not think right ie are a bit stupid, sauce for the goose but apparently not for the gander femalepolitico?
Posted by on May 10, 2007 @ 10:51 AMHarry: “The child may not have a very long life but it will be alive”.
Actually, Harry, it will be dying, from the moment it leaves the only place where its life can be supported. You may want to bring about/prolong the agony of a mother watching the inevitable death of her just-born child, but most of us, thank God (and you His name here deliberately!), would not.
Posted by on May 10, 2007 @ 11:33 AMHarry
I changed the wording slightly from the original post, as I had used a word twice, and it didnt read right.However, I did not make a mistake in the substsantive issue of the post, as you are stating.
I have witnessed the birth of two anacephalics and it is highly distressing. Depending on the amount of brain stem that is functioning there may be respiratory and cardiac function, but this will expire fairly rapidly.
While a foetus remains in utero, it is a foetus.
Posted by on May 10, 2007 @ 12:02 PMNo Miss Fitz you changed the post substantively and only after your mistake was pointed out by Cahal and I. You said the child will have no chance of life this is incorrect and you know it, when the child is born it will be alive, no one knows for how long it may live but it is still a living human being. You changed your post from no chance of life to no chance of survival, that is a totally different thing and you know it (I happen to know a few ancephalics too and they are both still alive many years after their birth).
**Mayoman**
I have no wish to prolong anyone’s agony, I haven’t the slightest idea why you would accuse me of such, have I posted to that affect somewhere? I merely wished to point out Miss Fitz’s inaccuracy, please try and keep up!
By the way the statement that the child will be dying from the time it leaves the womb is asinine, we are all dying from the time we leave our mother’s womb, for some it just takes longer.
Posted by on May 10, 2007 @ 11:16 PMNow I’m confused.
“Dr Declan Keane, The Master of the National Maternity Hospital, has called for the law to be changed to allow abortions to take place in Ireland where the foetus has no chance of living outside the womb.”
“Dr Keane said there were a handful of conditions which were incompatible with life, and anencephaly was one of these.”
Harry Flashman
(I happen to know a few ancephalics too and they are both still alive many years after their birth).One of them must be wrong!
Posted by on May 11, 2007 @ 05:23 AMHate to be a terrible pedant here, but anacephaly literaly means without a head. Reading some of the material yesterday I saw that Miss D saw on her scan that her baby had no head. How is a child without a brain going to survive birth? Without a brain stem, the foetus is hardly what one would recognise as living. If a child (or adult) were in the same condition, we would turn off the life support. Not even that there is a lack of brain function, there is a lack of brain.
Harry, I suspect you know people who have had encephalitis, which is a different, and survivable condition. In your own words - “Your ignorance of such a basic and fundamental fact rather precludes you from having anything meaningful to contribute to the debate don’t you think?”
Posted by on May 11, 2007 @ 07:03 AMSince when did absolute ignorance of the facts hinder anyone from presenting an argument on Slugger?
Posted by on May 11, 2007 @ 07:13 AMHarry
I’m not sure how to approach this now, as your comment about knowing people who have anacephaly is a bit disorienting. As I’ve mentioned, I have witnessed the birth of 2 anacephalics, and the distress of the situation is as vivid today as it was all those years ago. They are born with quite literally collapased heads, and death occurs within minutes, hours or perhaps up to 3 days. Survival beyond that is not feasible, as Dr Keane is quoted above because the condition is incompatible with life.As to your comments about the original post, I seem to be missing your point. I had used the word ‘survival’ twice, and corrected the second usage for tidiness. I have not substantially changed the post, nor did I change it in response to what anyone wrote. I always check my posts when they go on the board, to ensure they read as well as possible.
This foetus has no chance of life, and I make no apology for making that statmement. Many anacephalic foetus are spontaneous abortions, but those that are identified can be carried to term with the expectation of death soon after.
One of the points being made here of course is that it would be preferable to have abortion facilities for cases such as this as the post mortem situation would be better. In other words, the mother could be present for the length of life in a more familiar setting, and without the trauma of travel and other disruptions. I would not hesitate in supporting an abortion in this case, and I feel that the ambivalence that exists in the Irish consitution will need to be removed at some point.
Perhaps the further we move away from the strangle hold of religious supersitition and mediaeval notions of when life begins, we can address this with the benefit of science, empathy and compassion from a more practical perspective.
Posted by on May 11, 2007 @ 07:40 AM**Harry, I suspect you know people who have had encephalitis, which is a different, and survivable condition. In your own words - “Your ignorance of such a basic and fundamental fact rather precludes you from having anything meaningful to contribute to the debate don’t you think?”**
Er I’ll get me coat shall I?
But seriously, my main point remains (and I accept Miss Fitz’s explanation that she was merely tidying up her post) if the child was carried to full term and was not still born, would it not be a living human being no matter how brief and tragic its short life may be?
I am not being pedantic here, I would like to know the legal and/or medical situation. If I were in Miss D’s shoes I would do exactly what she is doing so please leave off the accusations that I am some sort of god bothering misogynist. But what if another woman decided to carry the pregancy to term and it was born alive?
Would we accept that the child born, with all its horrific abnormalities, fully cognisant of the fact that it had but a few hours to live, was nonetheless a fellow human being (if it was not then what would it be?) and would we agree that during its tragically brief existence it was an Irish citizen like us too?
Or would we deny the poor child the dignity of even that?
Posted by on May 11, 2007 @ 08:39 AMErr, ok gerry, are you a member of the PDs by any chance.
Back to the point at hand. Harry, and I, are trying to make a very simple point. The foetus/baby will be alive when it is born. We agree it will likely be dead within hours. However the distortion of facts here is indicative of the tactics used by the pro-abortion lobby.Miss Fitz says,
“This foetus has no chance of life”
This is just factually incorrect, and facts=credibility.
In my opinion, this debate has damn all to do with abortion ‘rights’. It seems to be more closely linked to the euthenasia debate.If a terminally ill person is incapable of making a decision about whether or not to terminate their own life, can their legal gaurdian make that decision for them? In this case I think most people would say yes.
Posted by on May 12, 2007 @ 04:16 PMCahal
Lets address the salient points here first.Do you contend that anacephaly is compatible with life? How long do you think that someone can live for without a functioning higher brain?
Just answer that please.
And for the record, I do not belong to a pro choice group. I exercised conscientious objection to absent myself from abortion procedures while I was nursing in New York.
However, I do believe in compassion and common sense, and I would have no hesitation in assisting at this abortion, if I was still in that line of work.
Posted by on May 12, 2007 @ 05:56 PMIf Miss Fitz thinks its cruel that a girl had to go before the courts in Dublin to obtain permission to travel for an abortion to the UK what does she think of the following proposal by our own Health Authority in Northern Ireland, issued in a document called “Draft Guidance on The Termination of Pregnancy in Northern Ireland,” published in January 2007 and easily obtainable on the internet :
Section 2.13 ….“These chapters explain the circumstances in which a
referral should be made to the court for a ruling before a medical
procedure or treatment is undertaken, and the circumstances in
which it may be appropriate to apply to the court to over-ride the
refusal of consent by a young person. Practitioners should be aware
that court referrals have been considered necessary and have been
made in some cases where termination of pregnancy has been the
issue:”
So look out for the case in Northern Ireland where a 17 year old girl in care doesn’t want to abort her anacephalic baby and is being taken to court by the Department of Health to “over-ride” her refusal of consent. Imagine the scene if she is forced to go ahead with an abortion to which she has not consented.
This is the “civilized” Ireland that feminists yearn for.
Truly barbaric.Posted by on May 14, 2007 @ 09:51 PM
