We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
INDEPENDENT TD FOR Kerry Danny Healy-Rae has asked the Taoiseach if he’ll call the army out as locals face “turmoil and tears with deer on the roads”.
Speaking in the Dáil yesterday, Healy-Rae said that urgent action is needed to make roads safer around Kerry, as “the deer are taking over”.
He said: “The deer are entering towns and villages, and estates around Killarney, and they have taken the place over. Cars are having accidents and people have died. People’s cars have been broken and young fellows are crying after paying dearly for insurance and getting their driver’s licence.
If someone shoots a deer, the national parks, the rangers and the guards all come down on top of them. Yet when the deer damage a car and people are injured or die as a result of these accidents, which has happened, no one does anything about it.
He closed his speaking time by asking if the Taoiseach will send the army in, or if he’d do something to make the Kerry roads safer.
In response to his question, Minister for Culture, Heritage and the Gaeltacht Josepha Madigan told Healy-Rae that anyone can apply to the National Parks and Wildlife Service for a licence.
“There is also a deer management programme in place for Killarney National Park. I believe a cull is under way there at present,” Madigan said. “If the Deputy has any specific instances which he would like to bring to our attention, I ask him to please do so.”
This response didn’t appease the Kerry TD, who replied: “It is only tokenism. It is not working.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I thought she wanted to have the baby at home ??? Then she leaves the Country to have it ???
Why didn’t she just pop to the local Hospital and have it I’m sure she:d be out the next day all going well. Going to another Country only put more expense on her : she cud have used that money to help pay her legal fee instead of looking for others to pay it for her: anyway that’s just my opinion the main thing is that Mother and Baby are doing well and that the most important issue. BTW why wud a Mother who had trouble delivering her first Child risk her life or the life of the child by insisting on a home birth !!!
You’re missing the point, Michael.
She’s an attention-seeker.
Micheal, you obviously know nothing about the case. Kindly educate yourself on the history of it before commenting.
If you read the judgement you will see that she would have sacrificed her life and that of her child to make her point, whatever it was.
Entirely untrue, Ian. She had done her research and accepted medical advice. Her midwife and the NHS were happy to facilitate her in a home birth. Had anything gone wrong she would have voluntarily transferred to hospital.
A come on Jane : that’s twice uv asked me to educate myself in the past week : please forgive me for not been born with a silver spoon in my gob but I only comment on what’s b4 me and u don’t need any PHD to realise an ego trip when u see one : I’m so delighted that Mammy and Baby are doing well but it’s all much ado about nothing really. BTW a nice glass of red wine with that dictionary uv swallowed : served in an Officers Mess Glass of course : I’m sure uv 1or2 knocking around :)
Jane, it seems that you are woefully misinformed about this case.
Heres the judgement
What has a silver spoon got to do with anything, Micheal? Your original comment was full of assumptions about the case which were unfounded.
On the contrary Ian, I am very familiar with both the case and the ruling.
Fair enough jane. However your contributions on this thread would indicate otherwise
Sorry if I gave that impression, Ian. I’m trying to answer lots of different comments at the same time! ;)
U question my education : I have little or no education : I joined the Army when I was 17 and anything I learned I learned it there : I have 2 kids and my uneducated mind wud advise me not to put them in harms way just to be “OUT THERE”
Micheal, that’s a vile thing to say. I never questioned your education, not would I ever. I asked you to educate yourself ABOUT THIS CASE before commenting.
Jane u sound like an educated woman so understand this : my lack of education might prevent me from understanding the full story but I tend to read and look beyond and identify any consequences that might appear : I think u see it as the right of the Mother to give birth where she wants where as I see the right of the child to stand the very best chance of life especially taking into account the Mothers Medical history : I’m all for women’s rights but not at the expense of such a precious little baby not being able to say ” Please Mammy take the best care of me” Midwives are great but they don’t have the equipment if anything goes wrong.
Micheal, I’ve never questioned your education and I’m still not doing that.
However, your assumption that Aja or any pregnant woman wouldn’t have her child’s best interests at heart as well as her own best interests is very insulting.
Jane when u go to Hospital the first thing ur asked is ur name and medical history and things move on from there : that is educating urself on the problem which u emphasize so much : no Doctor in his right mind wud agree with a home Birth after reading her history : it’s just not safe : how wud she feel if something happened to her baby??? She:d spend the rest of her life regretting it : sometimes u gotta look beyond a the Rights to avoid the wrongs
Jane, your assumption that a pregnant woman will never not have their child’s best intrests at heart is far more insulting to common sence. All you have to do is drive by the Rotunda to see that first hand with all the heavily pregnant smokers. #Militant feminist
Jane.. Yes its totally insulting to any woman that she wouldnt have her childs best interests at heart.. Would the same apply to women seeking abortions?
Big big ego trip not worthy of intelligent commen
Captain Morgan cannot think of an intelligent reply.
While I congratulate Aja Teehan on the birth of her child I strongly disagreed with her court case. This case centred on the question of insurance, the insurance for midwives in Ireland is normally provided by the State through the HSE and that’s what they wanted in this home birth. But if the State was to provide the insurance it maintained it had a right to minimise any risk it foresaw and say no or have Ms. Teehan give birth in a hospital setting. She said no.
Both she and her midwife declined to waive any liability or pay for their own insurance, which was their choice and right. They stubbornly maintained the risk of anything going wrong was minute, but despite this were not willing to take this chance upon themselves and wanted the State to pay for insurance, should the minute possibility happen.
Thankfully the judge agreed that what they asked was both wrong and selfish and threw their case out. I believe they should have to pay the full costs of this action themselves and to ask others to pay for her mistakes is, frankly insulting. This is her doing, she can pay for it.
For once I agree with the hse, it was very risky of her to attempt a home birth when she previously had a c section.
Good to her that mother and baby are ok
Can the chap hurl for Kilkenny now after being born in the UK? LOL!
Any one else want to campaign to tax their fundraising campaign ??
She cost the state over 100k in legal costs. Still, it’s not as if the state is hard up or anything. Congratulations indeed.
There is a precedent set now by the judges ruling, far less likely for similar cases to come forward, or indeed a case where something went wrong and the HSE was on the hook for alot more.
Mary she actually cost me and you and everyone else that pays taxes 100k
She brought the case to court she lost the case and is now looking for other people to pay her fees by fundraising don’t think so
Some neck hey Deirdre!
I agree the cheek doesn’t even have her child in Ireland and want the Irish people to pay her fees
Just wondering , in what way is I Kilkenny woman going to the uk to have a baby a home birth ?
She had her birth in a home setting in the UK, not in a hospital.
So Jane are you helping her out with her legal fees
So she spent half of her pregnancy fighting to have a home birth that would put both her and her baby at risk?! Attention seeker is right Dave! I agree for once with the HSE – would be a different story if she had given birth at home and it all went wrong. Jane I wonder what your comments would be like then…..
Barbara, absolutely every medical professional involved in the case agreed that in her PERSONAL circumstances her risk of rupture was very low. Most agreed that she should have the choice of where to give birth.
Think il be donating some money to the philipines…
I wonder has the woman who tried to sue CopperFace Jacks because she fell over while drunkenly dancing set up a fundraising drive too?
Did she actually HAVE a home birth in the UK? The report I read says that she “declined to disclose the circumstances”. I would imagine that if she had a home birth and all had gone safely then she would be “disclosing the circumstances”
No where tells us Vicky. She could have had a c section in a hospital for all we know. I doubt the details will be released Incase god forbid it was not a home birth actually ( not that it could be as she was not at home). Last report I heard was that it was in home birth type room in a hospital… Which sounds very much like a midwife led unit here.
Fundraising for this woman’s child birth , when there are people in the Philippines giving birth in dirty shacks , are people going nuts , this woman needs a kick in the hole
€10,700 is a lot of money – thankfully the taxpayer won’t have to pay this bill.
Anyway, it serves her right – attention-seeker.
Thats only her own costs, HSE waived theirs so you and me get lumped with that bill
Thanks for the clarification – I should have known the taxpayer would have gotten shafted by this one way or another..
Nevertheless, I think the €10,700 costs ruling against this woman will serve as a deterrent to other women who may also feel they would like to put their own lives in danger.
Standby ……late late or Brendan O ‘C
I doubt RTE would touch this story with a barge-pole.
Lucky woman that we are footing most of the legal costs in this folly of a case as the HSE did not ask for their costs.
I had a vbac after Caesarian – I asked for it in the hospital and was facilitated no problem. I have no problem with this woman taking her case to court against the hse but I think it’s disgraceful that she is now asking the public to pay her costs! It was HER and her partners decision – no one else’s – and now she is fundraising to pay costs she knew she could well incur when there are people all over this country struggling to force the hse to pay costs over their child’s disability caused through malpractice or their disabled child being denied an education. So she couldn’t give birth at home sorry but she’d want to have a real problem to deal with she really would.
This woman is an idiot.pure selfish.
She should move there so.
You should move there, ya t0sser.
Damn scientologists.
As adults we’re entitled to accept or decline medical advice, or go elsewhere for our treatment. As parents we can do the same for our children.
Why is it only in pregnancy that women in this country cease to have autonomy over their own care and their own bodies?
The 8th amendment, that’s why. We’re expected to be good little vessels for the future youth of catholic Ireland, to do as we’re told and not question it.
Some of the responses here about women and our rights to the birth of our choice make me feel physically ill.
No Jane you can’t do that for your children – brush up on things before you go commenting in public
Jane if you feel physically ill its because you don’t understand the issues at hand at all
Every word you speak is nonsense
Do you have any medical training?
Jane, change the record for God’s sake. The responses here are to Aja Teehan, not women in general. But as usual, the uber feminist in you comes out playing the “all women are victims of the repressive state of Ireland” card.
Feminism a belief that the only way women can have equal rights to men is if men take responsibility for the actions of women – uber rubbish indeed
There are various flavors of it kkkjsjsksk, most of it is grand, but there is an element of it that sees women as superior, and this is what we see going on here.
Superior and entitled – nice combo
Yes kkk, you can. If a doctor refuses surgery for a child with recurrent tonsillitis, for example, you can find another doctor and get a second opinion. No-one will call you a bad mother for it.
Try to make decisions for your child while still in utero and it’s a different scenario.
Daniel, there are or were some offensive comments here. Maybe they’ve already been removed, but some were vile.
@jane, correct me if in wrong but its my understanding that nobody would drag her to hospital should she decided to stay at home when she webt into labour, what she wanted was a self employed midwife to be at home with her but this midwife has to be covered by the HSE should anything go wrong and this is what she was being refused..
Pregnancy, and the mothers/infants rights cannot be viewed in an orthodox manner. The uniqueness of pregnancy, doesn’t allow neatly linear viewpoints.
Correct @thechosen1, it was all about the HSE footing the bill for her wanting the midwife at home with her and the homebirth, when they told her she had to pay for it all herself, this is when all the attention seeking started about the HSE not looking after her and she lost her case. Anyone who gives this woman 1 cent of a donation is a knobend. This is plenty more causes out there in much more need of funds than this attention seeking *****
No Thechosen, you’re correct.
The real problem lay with the nearest maternity hospital to her in Kilkenny, where she gave birth to her first child. In that hospital the caesarean rate for first-time mothers is 49%, more than double the recommended maximum rate. This is why Aja had a section first time round.
The c-section rate for VBAC in that hospital is 94%. If Aja was forced to attend that hospital through lack of other choices, she was almost guaranteed to have another VBAC.
This was the essence of her objection and her choice to have a home birth.
What is unique about pregnancy… It happens all the time
Well Sean, the physical trauma, harm and danger that pregnancy poses for a woman are of a level that ordinarily could not be consented to, for example in the criminal law.
Hospital isn’t going to facilitate home birth where there’s an increased risk of uterine rupture after previous caesarean section. There is a 30% chance of emergency c section if a mother attempts a vaginal delivery after previous c section. She’s dicing with death by not going to the hospital, incredibly selfish.
Aaron, you have the facts of this case completely wrong.
Every pregnancy is unique Sean. Even an individual woman’s subsequent pregnancies are unique and can be very different to her first.
This case was about Aja’s right to be assessed individually and not barred from having a home birth because of rules based on generalities.
Belly up, the hospital in Kilkenny where she would have had to deliver has a 94% incidence of Caesarean sections in the case of subsequent pregnancies after c-section. That’s the real scandal here.
How do you know whether or not they are mainly mother’s choice?
I don’t believe there are decisions to be made for unborn babies. Mum just does what’s best for baby, end of. When you are pregnant your body is not your own to do with as you please, baby comes first. I’m glad to hear all went well for this little baby, however, it’s not a risk I’d have taken myself.
Really, Belly up? Do you honestly think that 94% of all women are choosing a second caesarean?
The numbers in this hospital are completely out of whack with the averages in the country (which are still too high, just not this high) and are wildly out of line with World Health Organisation recommendations.
Yes, Jane. There is something conveyor belt like, about the sheer number of Caesareans in Ireland. Hard to fathom the reasoning, or lack thereof, behind it.
Unfortunately Jane I don’t think I do, it seems your the one who has your facts wrong and inside out, as you keep saying to everyone else, educate yourself on it and look at the facts. This had nothing to c-sections, hospitals, at home births, it was all about her refusing to sign a contract for the HSE to pay for the mid-wife and any complications that may occur and for the HSE to be libel for her selfish choice. She is getting too much air-time for nothing but selfishness and attention. She should just be forgotten about now and go back into the dark. She tried her best to blacken the HSE and mid-wifery section of it but it came back to bite her in the arse. Theres plenty of people out there with real needs and people who need court time for genuine reasons and she wasted a lot of that time for no other reason but selfishness. She should stay in the UK, they are welcome to her
Aaron, you’re wrong. The HSE refused her a home birth on general grounds of being a VBAC. She took medical advice and requested that they assess her individually and not generally. They refused.
That’s where this all started.
I’m not saying all of them are mother’s choice
Jane, consultants encourage an attempt at a VBAC after the 1st. As long as it’s in a hospital where any complications can’t be dealt with in time. The option is there after one c section, and they success rate is quite high.
Part of the problem in this case, Gillian, was the hospital in question where the incidence of repeat c-section for second births is abnormally high at 94%.
I wonder what percentage of that were elective. I doubt they were all emergency.
Yes Jane, she decided herself that she was special above everyone else and that if the doctors refused what she wanted due to their professional medical decision that she would try make a show of them and bully them into it by putting it in the papers and courts thinking they would back down. It didn’t work for her, I’m glad it didn’t, shes no more special than any other woman giving birth. It was a high risk pregnancy, she needed to be in a hospital for it if complications arose, she was acting spiteful and selfish, end of
Here you go Jane. From the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Green Top Guidelines:
Women should be advised that planned VBAC should be conducted in a suitably staffed and equipped
delivery suite, with continuous intrapartum care and monitoring and available resources for immediate
caesarean section and advanced neonatal resuscitation.
Obstetric, midwifery, anaesthetic, operating theatre, neonatal and haematological support should be
continuously available throughout planned VBAC and ERCS.
I know people who have higher debt than that, maybe we should all set up fundraising drives
Andrea don’t rattle Jane she don’t take it to well ;)
Glad she had a safe delivery now lady pay your bills
The first sentence of this article makes absolutely no grammatical sense.
Thats the norm so,
I’m glad all is well with the baby.
She’s still an attention seeker though.
Congratulations Aja! So happy you got the birth you wanted, even if you had to leave the country to get it.
This fecking country. We’re exporting our home births now as well as our abortions :(
It wasn’t as simple as that Jane.
Andrea, I’m well aware of the facts of the case. That is precisely what it boils down to.
She could have had it at home but she wouldn’t sign a contract taking responsibility for anything going wrong. …she wanted to be able to sue the hse. ..glad things went well but only a fool would give money to her towards her legal costs…id say they’re not short of a bob or two
It is a wonderful country, she was free to pick where to go for the home birth she wanted. Just because you don’t get what you want doesn’t make this a terrible country.
No Jane, it all boiled down to who would be held responsible if something went wrong and both parties agreed that the HSE would.
Well done Andrea Jane is misleading everyone once again
Were the hse not right to say they wouldn’t be held responsible and therefor wouldn’t allow a home birth? Last thing the hse and tax payer needs is another legal case and settlement in the event of an accident…
Remember she would be deemed high risk after needing a section on her last birth…
Mirror Mirror, that’s not true. The HSE refused to let a midwife attend her at home under any circumstances.
Jgrcb, why then were both the midwife and the NHS happy for her to have a home birth? The NHS in the UK saw absolutely no problem with facilitating a home birth for a VBAC.
@JANE: This fecking country. We’re exporting our home births now as well as our abortions :(
I notice you are trying to tag on your abortion-on-demand stance again… tell me… why should the Irish Taxpayer fund non-essential terminations? Why should the Irish Taxpayer be liable for damages in a home birth case where there are known risks?
It seems you want the taxpayer to fund lifestyle choices at all costs. Well sorry Jane, but the vast majority of Irish Taxpayers say NO.
Daniel.. I agree.. Jane will be looking for free cigarettes for expectant mothers next.. Hey its a womans choice and if we dont get what we want then ye are all a bunch of mysognists
Thats not true jane. They refused to underwrite a midwife conducting a home birth. Her right to a home birth is infinitely outweighed by her childs right to a safe birth. All the experts in the trial afreed there was an element of risk in a home birth far greater than in a hospital setting.
Completely agree with the majority of comments here. The woman was being utterly selfish and should have accepted the medical advice that was given to her. She chose to go against it and fought for a home birth. Absolutely no reason the hse should have buckled to her. Fair play to them I say!!!
Thank you for writing the real facts of this case.
Jane if you knew anything about obstetrics you’d know it’s far from an exact science. Views can differ between obstetricians and none is necessarily more valid than the other. The HSE didn’t accept the risk in this situation, just because the NHS did doesn’t mean they are right.
Rte news had reported that the woman would not waive liability in respect of any injuries received to either of them.
What’s new? Not much support for her on this topic here, I wonder why, look up to heaven and roll eyes lol
Mary you can’t guarantee that for every woman. That’s why you were monitored! I personally wouldn’t take a chance. Thankfully I have 3 healthy children – 3 natural hospital births with fantastic medical care. Don’t know why anyone would take that risk even if it was a small risk.
Congratulations wonderful news!, so what was all the fuss about.
I’m gathering because she a c section in her previous birth they deemed it unsafe to have a home birth incase any complications arouse.
That’s right, James. Though the greatest risk of uterine rupture comes from the use of oxytocin to speed up contractions, which is only used in hospitals and not home births….
Wow Jane I didn’t realise you were a medical doctor. Congrats. Where’d you get your M.D. from? Wikipedia?
I think you can download them now
News flash: person with comedy avatar and fake name is sarcastic. *rolls eyes*
The biggest risk factor, by far, for uterine rupture is a caesarian scar.
Thanks for the clarification, Ronan. I should have said the biggest risk factor for uterine rupture *in VBAC* is the use if oxytocin. Obviously this means the presence of a caesarean scar.
Jane, it just seemed (and still does after re-reading your reply to James Murphy), that you were saying that the oxytocin risk was greater than the previous c-section risk.
Not a very Killkenny name is it??.
Anyway doctor Jane I’d like your medical opinion as your so highly qualified. Whats best toliet paper? My bum is awfully sensitive. That’s about my level of confidence in your medical knowhow
Nice to see Jane with her MA educating the masses on obstetrics nice
Pity every word of it is wrong confirmation biases
Hope the UK tax payer didn’t have to subsidise any part of this.
Ronan, I said use of oxytocin was a major risk in VBAC.
Well now kkk, this is interesting! How do you know I have an MA? Been doing a bit of snooping, have we? I’m so touched to know that you care :)
Despicable you, the UK taxpayer did fund this as it was the NHS who facilitated Aja in having a home birth.
That is not what you said (but I accept that that is what you meant to claim), you actually said “Though the greatest risk of uterine rupture comes from the use of oxytocin”.
This would imply that the oxytocin is a greater risk than previous caesarian. I was just correcting that.
Bet the UK media would love a bit of this story… ” Irish fantasist drains British taxpayer”
I phrased it badly Ronan, and thanked you for your correction.
I find it curious that people commenting here who would normally castigate the hse for opening an envelope and the public service for existing believe that the bean counters and paper shufflers who make up the bulk of the hse “mismanagement” actually took a good decision! Given the standard of medical care offered to several women who have died in the past years and the general management of the health service I wonder how anyone can blame ms Teehan for wanting to do things her way. As I understand a well managed mid wife led home birth is safer than any hospital birth.
Jane it’s only used in hospitals because there’s an increased risk of uterine rupture so of course they won’t use it at home births. Previous c section is a relative contraindication to induction of labour or augmentation. If they can’t use it when it’s needed (often needed for women who have never had a vaginal delivery ala Ms Teehan) then there is a massive increased risk of emergency c section. Where do you want to be where there is an increased risk of emergency c section? In the hospital, not in your home.
Not in this situation
Above comment was for Sean
Well said Sean :)
She didn’t have a home birth Jane unless she’s relocated to the UK…BTW nobody here stopped her having a home birth if that’s what she wanted, they just would not cover her midwife going by her previous pregnancy history….and they were perfectly right, she is a very silly selfish woman.
Teehan? There are loads of Teehan’s around county Kilkenny.
So the fact that the midwife could face being struck off and a prison sentence, is so totally noboy stopping her having a home birth.
For breach of contract Sharrow, yes. I am pretty sure that if you use your employers insurance to cover your nixer work then it is against the rules too and would face disciplinary action too.
Jane, I think you are casting pearls before swine, with some of these ‘contributors’. You are one of the few voices of reason and sense on here but sadly, reason and sense are like a red flag to a bull for some. I however, appreciate your calm and well informed comments. You exhibit admirable restraint when others flail about, trying to out do each other in condemning a woman they don’t even know. Respect.
Yes their previous history!! How do you know that her c section scar couldn’t have caused the birth to go wrong?? Would you not rather the woman and her child to be safe and healthy? Imagine if the poor midwife was put in a situation where she couldn’t help the mother and child.
we live in a country with shiny sports stadiums and convention centres and Victorian era maternity facilities. Unless you go private the facilities can be unhygienic and over crowded, She should have been facilitated as long as she accepted any additional perceived risk
But that’s the whole point. She wasn’t prepared to do that. She could have had her baby in a bush if she wanted but she wouldn’t be able to have a midwife as they are all insured through the HSE so the HSE could have been held accountable in the event something went wrong.
That’s bull, Andrea. She was perfectly willing to hire a private midwife and pay all costs herself, but the private midwife who was happy to take her case was blocked by the HSE.
People like you then say “She could have given birth at home without a midwife.” This is 2013. Why should she have to give birth without medical care?
im not a hippy about this but maternity hospitals can be very traumatic places. Holles St for instance put people on a clock so they end up with more c-sections than are needed. It wasnt an outrageous request and if the HSE cant deal with people as individuals then they need to get back to basics.
I do accept that medical should be able to override a patients wishes , just not on the basis on some high handed generality clause.
It’s not bull Jane. Every midwife here is insured through the HSE, that was the whole problem.
Jane: why should the HSE be forced to take accept liability for something they disagree with on medical grounds? Or has this reporter got their facts wrong? She was lucky not to be forced to pay the HSE’s costs.
“Ms Justice O’Malley had decided that Ms Teehan, a university lecturer, was not entitled to compel the HSE to accept liability for risk involved in a home birth which it did not believe was justifiable.”
Mary, ask yourself this;
The very experienced independent midwife who Aja had employed was happy for her to have a home birth.
The NHS was happy for her to have a home birth.
Only the HSE opposed it.
Why?
The only reason the HSE blocked it is that she wouldn’t sign the liability waver! If something did go wrong she would have sued the HSE and the taxpayer would have to foot the bill! If she signed the form she could have had the birth she wanted.
Nobody should have to waive their rights, David. Why did the NHS have no problem facilitating her?
@Jane: Because the HSE felt that the home birth in this case was risky and did not want to be held liable for any complications. The high court agreed with them. As has been pointed out, she was perfectly entitled to go ahead with a home birth if she wished but without any HSE involvement or protection. From the HSE website;
http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/3/maternity/homebirth.html
“Should an expectant mother and her nominated SECM proceed with a Home Birth outside the terms of the MOU or without applying to the HSE for domiciliary midwifery services, then this midwife will not have the benefit and protection of CIS cover in respect of any subsequent medical malpractice claim or inquest.
Therefore if an expectant mother enters into a private arrangement with an SECM for a home birth it is the responsibility of the midwife to have alternative insurance cover and the expectant mother should satisfy herself that alternative insurance cover is in place.”
If the NHS is willing to take a risk fair play to them . It doesn’t make it the right decision for mother and baby. I believe erring in the side of caution was best for this situation!
If something had gone wrong with this birth, God forbid, would the English NHS have been liable?
Jane how come you’re on a first-name basis with this woman? Do you know her?
The femenazi movement are loud and vocal, but they are a very small minority hence it’s easy to get to know everyone on a first-name basis Mr Farrelly!
Jane you’ve demonstrated your lack of expertise on the issue please drop your argument
Exactly Jane. Every birth can have sudden risks. Why should Aja be expected to sign a waiver? What about the mother who presents with health problems due to smoking, drinking or other questionable lifestyle choices? Will she be asked to sign a waiver? The answer is no. What about the Diabetic mother who chooses to have a baby? The woman who proceeds with a pregnancy despite warnings for whatever reason? The obese woman who wants to have a family? The list goes on.
June, most of those women would not be permitted to have a home birth either. They don’t have to sign waivers simply to give birth. But why should the HSE be held responsible if something went wrong when the mother ignored the advice of the doctors involved? That was the problem here, it’s not an attack on high risk pregnant women in general.
AIMS commenting on the case suggested quite reasonably “Best practice clearly states that patients should be assessed on an individual basis on their current health, current medical conditions, as well as their previous history. The HSE are not providing women with individual assessment, a fundamental principle in evidence based care.”
but fair enough we’ll run with the uppity bird meme
Well said Dee4 :)
@jane. Why don’t you count back all the red thumbs you have here today and take this home, the vast majority of people simply don’t agree with you. You lack basic self awareness as you seem to have all the facts and everyone else is wrong.
“The HSE are not providing women with individual assessment, a fundamental principle in evidence based care.”
Not a fan of the HSE, but is this not an individual assessment in this ladies case? Previous individual circumstances of Caesarean indicated that there was an individual risk to her and her baby associated with this pregnancy, therefore they were sticking to best practice in relation to managing the risks associated with the pregnancy.They cannot cover that risk or place their employees in circumstances that go against best practice for this individual case.
It’s not the uppity bird meme, its the cost to the taxpayer to fight a weak case against the best medical advice available.
Look at me,look at me,look at me please please please
Just reading the comments here and seeing quite a few saying the maternity hospitals are just treating you like you were on a conveyor belt. I must be very lucky as when I had my little boy, the doctors, midwives and nurses done everything they could to avoid a c section. I had preeclampsia and had to be induced, unfortunately my babies heart beat kept dropping with every contraction. They couldn’t have been better in my opinion, kept everything nice and calm and although I was prepped for a section, the doctor herself said, “I don’t want you to have a section, this is your first baby so we will try absolutely everything to avoid that”. They kept monitoring everything constantly and luckily my baby was delivered naturally and healthy. I understand it’s easy to give out about the hse and staff but in my experience they were fantastic.
You’re absolutely right. Doctors avoid c section as much as they can. It’s not a decision that’s taken lightly. Vaginal delivery is safer in most cases but in some situations the balance tips in favour of c section.
Back in June 1989 I gave birth to a baby by c-section in that same Kilkenny hospital. In June 1990, I had a normal delivery after what they called ‘ a trial of scar’ . In other words they monitored the situation. There are far too many c-sections now. It’s all about avoiding litigation and less about the mother and baby. Aj had a considerable period between the births of her two children ( the recommended time to have another baby after c-section is three years) so I’m sure she would’ve been fine having her baby at home as she wanted.
Oh yeah, because your situation went well I’m sure it’ll go swimmingly for everyone. Keep living in your self centered dream world.
Yea I’m pretty sure I’d be relaxed and confident if my consultant told me he’s sure I’d be fine attempting a VBAC at home! Please! The precautions are in place because it does actually happen, just because you’re low risk it doesn’t make you exempt.
Such a nasty bunch of commenters on here! ( not all of them, mind you) I was merely stating my situation. I’ve had six children in that hospital with the best of care as a public patient. They are all grown up now but it seems to me that it has all become like a conveyor belt now and the mothers wishes are less and less taken into account. The doctors and the HSE are so terrified of litigation that it’s just easier to open up the woman, take out the baby and stitch her up again, not to mention the time constraints of waiting for the duration of labour. It was never meant to be that way except in the case of emergencies. Nature decrees that we give birth naturally
That’s why they are called emergency C sections. I don’t claim to know what goes on behind the doors of every labour ward in the country all I know is I’d rather they took no chances when things are not going to plan. At the end if the day getting the babies out safely is paramount. How the woman would ‘like’ to deliver is irrelevant.
But that’s the problem. Things have to go to the hospitals plan. The maternity wards are so overworked there is a schedule to be met and if nature doesn’t shuffle along to the hospitals plan they will speed things up etc etc. If you go to hospital after a section to try for a normal delivery they can’t use oxytocin to make the contractions stronger to speed up delivery and keep to their turnaround time. Wow reading back it sounds like Ryanair flights lol.
Hi Julie, I disagree, obviously! I just think that what’s best for the baby has to come before mothers wishes. Sure, natural is always best and for sure that’s what’s encouraged, by all means cesarean is a last resort. VBAC’s are the mothers choice and rightly so. Very high success rate too. But the risks, however small somehow appear huge when you put them into perspective. If you are being advised to do one thing and you fight to do another you’d have to question where your priorities lie. Nothing wrong with having a birth plan as long as your prepared to rip it up half way through should the need arise.
Just to add to that, going back to your original comment, woman can only be listened to up to a point, after that we have to let the professionals do their job. Your Dr saved your life and the life of your child. That’s what they do, save lives and they don’t do it by listening to women, they do it by making the woman listen to them and in some cases the quicker they can do that the better.
Julie, it’s refreshing to read one of the very few, sensible and non ‘personal bashing’ comments on here. I had an emergency C Section on my first child. Three years later I was told I was at little or no risk of rupture on my second delivery. I prepared for a natural birth, attended the VBAC classes but at the last minute, was pressured into another C Section because my Doctor was due to retire the day my baby was due! Recovery from that section was very difficult but once my baby was out, I was dispatched home 3 days later, to get on with it.
I followed Aja’s case with interest and appreciate her reasons for pursuing what she believed to be right for her and her child. Nothing could be further from the truth that she is an “attention seeker”, or that she expects others to pick up the tab.
It sickens me how other women are happily jumping all over this young mother, when most of them are not even in possession of all the facts. It doesn’t surprise me though how the men on this thread comment with such derision and sarcasm, as these types are usually quick to anger when faced with a strong educated woman, daring to put herself ‘out there’ for her beliefs. How dare any woman speak up for herself. Do what you’re told and be glad about it…… Sorry, those days are gone and each and every woman has the right to do and say what she truly believes.
Aja had the courage of her convictions and knew well how that would be received by the ‘Moral Mob’. This thread only goes to prove that.
Congratulations Aja and Charles on the safe and natural delivery of your precious son. May you and your daughter enjoy every minute of his arrival into your family.
June, I think you’ll find the reason people have a problem with this woman putting herself ‘out there’ was that she was also putting her baby out there. Why the hell would someone go against medical advice to that extreme why it’s not just their safety hanging in the balance? Fair play if she did get the natural delivery that she wanted but doctors and the HSE are not physics. They can only do what medical facts indicate are safest in the interest if mothers and babies.
My comment was deleted but what I said was quite frankly I don’t believe your obstetrician admitted liability to you the day after your unfortunate incident.
I agree with the HSE, she had a caesarean for her first child and was advised to have the second child in a hospital for the safety for her child. To me she is an attention seeker who cost us tax payers money, I bet that if she had been allowed to have a home birth and something went wrong she would be the very one to try and sue the HSE.
My god its a bloody shame that we Irish think that trying to stand up for your own personal rights is considered attention seeking. So we should all just lie down and do what we are told..has nt caused any problems so far…
And if something did go wrong she would sue the HSE which would come out of your pocket! The only reason she didn’t have a home birth was she wouldn’t sign a waiver! That’s why she didn’t win the court case!
Shes only a silent face of a group promoting home births. A pretty face yes but her actions are sponsored by others
Sponsored? Not good sponsors to feck off into the sunset and leave her with big legal bills – but what would you expect from the femenazi brigade, all bark and no bite.
My god yer an argumentative bunch. Some thread.
The HSE trying to control people’s lives and future via the High Court. Including the lives of adolescents. Parents of adolescent children should be aware that if your child goes into Psychiatric “care” it can be very difficult to get them back again. The psychological torture of been locked into one of these units, thinking you will never get out again, cannot be described in words.
The Psychiatric survivor movement has been following a number of cases in the paper and find it quite upsetting but somewhat predictable. Sad that it is allowed to continue in the year 2013 with what is now now known about prescribed psychoactive drugs ~
“Sitting on my bed suffering in pain alone. All by myself and nobody cares. I feel so much pain it’s unbelievable. I really want to go home but nobody will let me go home. I have given up. I have lost all hope.”
“HSE bid to obtain teenage patient’s passport rejected” ~
Are they in league with the illuminati? Because I know how to defeat them. But if it involves triads I’m not so sure.
Probably valid points… but what has this all got to do with home births??
@Mary Are who in league?
Let me guess ~ you are a nurse Mary? Or at least work for the HSE. I have learned, due to their indoctrination into the biomedical model, that nurses are the ones to watch out for. If anything happens to this young girl in “care” the HSE are ultimately responsible. She wouldn’t be the first to die.
But I can see as a society we tolerate such abuses. But have been doing so for quit a long time!
“The law and the media are allowing abuses in childcare cases to stay hidden ~
Often it’s clear that the people being protected are not the children or their families but those acting for the State – social workers, lawyers and judges”. Resulting in human rights abuses. We obviously now live in a country that does not care about such abuses, both from the bottom up and the top down. Those that do care are an exception to the rule.
Yeah, you really can’t trust those nurses
I have learned the hard way who I can trust and who to watch out for (saw it in black and white in notes).
“Up to 1,200 people may have died at Stafford hospital due to poor care” ~ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2508087/NHS-staff-Mid-Staffordshire-hospital-guilty-neglect-abuse-face-jail.html
I don’t know the circumstances of this particular woman, perhaps she was pursuing a risky birth choice, but many people commenting here appear to believe that all natural births after a c-section are high risk. This is not correct. There are two main factors that determine the risk:
1. Whether the reason for the initial c-section was a ‘one-off’ (won’t be repeated in subsequent pregnancies)
2. The length of time passed between the c-section birth and getting pregnant again. Once two or three years have passed, the uterine scar has sufficiently strengthened to bring the risk of scar rupture during labour to under one percent.
Is less than one percent an acceptable risk? You may say no, but you should be aware that all types of birth carry risk. When you look at all the different things that can go wrong, and the chances of them happening, less than one percent starts to look good!
I wonder if the NHS and the midwife were happy to facilitate her choice, then her risks can surely not have been that high? Talk of of her selfishly risking her baby’s life because she’s an attention seeker is a bit on the hysterical side, to be honest.
Hammy, the problem is – Aja would not sign the insurance waiver that the HSE (you and me the taxpayer) pay for.
Hmmmm……The first factor there, they can’t guarantee any reason would be a one off so surely if something happens once then there is a risk of it happening again. Sure You can’t even attend the midwifery led unit if you’ve had a cesarean.
So home just like the homemade sandwiches I see on trains in uk
Lol Dee4! Nice one :)
Jane, I’ve never seen you get so many red thumbs, remember pro-choice on demand without limits = green thumbs, home birth on demand against best medical practice in relation to individually assessed risk = red thumbs.
That was high risk with her history. Both home and hsptl births call for c section with such history. I had home birrth and the interview to make sure it would be healthy and safe was a very very long one!! Thank goodness it was perfect but id have no problem being told I needed to go to hospital if I were at all in danger and especially if my unborn child were I danger. With her history, why bother with all that stress added to your pregnancy by going to court? Well safe and a happy healthy life to their family.
Congrats lads
Love this article coming so soon after that fabulous item on here last week about ” designer vaginas”
Use precise geolocation data. Actively scan device characteristics for identification. Store and/or access information on a device. Personalised advertising and content, advertising and content measurement, audience research and services development.
These cookies are necessary for the website to function and cannot be switched off in our systems. They are usually only set in response to actions made by you which amount to a request for services, such as setting your privacy preferences, logging in or filling in forms. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not then work.
These cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.
These cookies enable the website to provide enhanced functionality and personalisation. They may be set by us or by third party providers whose services we have added to our pages. If you do not allow these cookies then these services may not function properly.
These cookies allow us to count visits and traffic sources so we can measure and improve the performance of our site. They help us to know which pages are the most and least popular and see how visitors move around the site. All information these cookies collect is aggregated and therefore anonymous. If you do not allow these cookies we will not be able to monitor our performance.
Cookies, device or similar online identifiers (e.g. login-based identifiers, randomly assigned identifiers, network based identifiers) together with other information (e.g. browser type and information, language, screen size, supported technologies etc.) can be stored or read on your device to recognise it each time it connects to an app or to a website, for one or several of the purposes presented here.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times an ad is presented to you).
Information about your activity on this service (such as forms you submit, content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (for example, information from your previous activity on this service and other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (that might include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present advertising that appears more relevant based on your possible interests by this and other entities.
Advertising presented to you on this service can be based on your advertising profiles, which can reflect your activity on this service or other websites or apps (like the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects.
Information about your activity on this service (for instance, forms you submit, non-advertising content you look at) can be stored and combined with other information about you (such as your previous activity on this service or other websites or apps) or similar users. This is then used to build or improve a profile about you (which might for example include possible interests and personal aspects). Your profile can be used (also later) to present content that appears more relevant based on your possible interests, such as by adapting the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find content that matches your interests.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on your content personalisation profiles, which can reflect your activity on this or other services (for instance, the forms you submit, content you look at), possible interests and personal aspects. This can for example be used to adapt the order in which content is shown to you, so that it is even easier for you to find (non-advertising) content that matches your interests.
Information regarding which advertising is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine how well an advert has worked for you or other users and whether the goals of the advertising were reached. For instance, whether you saw an ad, whether you clicked on it, whether it led you to buy a product or visit a website, etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of advertising campaigns.
Information regarding which content is presented to you and how you interact with it can be used to determine whether the (non-advertising) content e.g. reached its intended audience and matched your interests. For instance, whether you read an article, watch a video, listen to a podcast or look at a product description, how long you spent on this service and the web pages you visit etc. This is very helpful to understand the relevance of (non-advertising) content that is shown to you.
Reports can be generated based on the combination of data sets (like user profiles, statistics, market research, analytics data) regarding your interactions and those of other users with advertising or (non-advertising) content to identify common characteristics (for instance, to determine which target audiences are more receptive to an ad campaign or to certain contents).
Information about your activity on this service, such as your interaction with ads or content, can be very helpful to improve products and services and to build new products and services based on user interactions, the type of audience, etc. This specific purpose does not include the development or improvement of user profiles and identifiers.
Content presented to you on this service can be based on limited data, such as the website or app you are using, your non-precise location, your device type, or which content you are (or have been) interacting with (for example, to limit the number of times a video or an article is presented to you).
With your acceptance, your precise location (within a radius of less than 500 metres) may be used in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
With your acceptance, certain characteristics specific to your device might be requested and used to distinguish it from other devices (such as the installed fonts or plugins, the resolution of your screen) in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
Your data can be used to monitor for and prevent unusual and possibly fraudulent activity (for example, regarding advertising, ad clicks by bots), and ensure systems and processes work properly and securely. It can also be used to correct any problems you, the publisher or the advertiser may encounter in the delivery of content and ads and in your interaction with them.
Certain information (like an IP address or device capabilities) is used to ensure the technical compatibility of the content or advertising, and to facilitate the transmission of the content or ad to your device.
Information about your activity on this service may be matched and combined with other information relating to you and originating from various sources (for instance your activity on a separate online service, your use of a loyalty card in-store, or your answers to a survey), in support of the purposes explained in this notice.
In support of the purposes explained in this notice, your device might be considered as likely linked to other devices that belong to you or your household (for instance because you are logged in to the same service on both your phone and your computer, or because you may use the same Internet connection on both devices).
Your device might be distinguished from other devices based on information it automatically sends when accessing the Internet (for instance, the IP address of your Internet connection or the type of browser you are using) in support of the purposes exposed in this notice.
The choices you make regarding the purposes and entities listed in this notice are saved and made available to those entities in the form of digital signals (such as a string of characters). This is necessary in order to enable both this service and those entities to respect such choices.
have your say