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.
THE BODY TASKED with overseeing the implementation of rulings by the European Court of Human Rights will examine the Irish Government’s response to the ABC ruling by early December.
The Committee of Ministers in the Council of Europe will give its view on Ireland’s compliance with the ruling case on 4 – 6 December, RTÉ reports.
The Taoiseach told the Dáil today that the Minister for Health James Reilly had received the report of the expert group on abortion in the last 24 hours – but that it had not yet been seen or read. The group was set up to examine how Ireland can implement the European ruling on abortion rights.
The news comes amid outrage that a 31-year-old woman, Savita Praveen Halappanavar, died in a Galway hospital after being refused an abortion as she suffered a miscarriage over two days last month.
Savita had presented to the hospital on 21 October complaining of severe back pain and was found to be undergoing a miscarriage; however, the foetus remained inside her body and a foetal heartbeat was detected.
Despite Savita requesting an abortion several times, the foetus was not removed until 24 October – after the foetal heartbeat had stopped.
Immediately afterwards Savita was brought to a high dependency unit in the hospital suffering from septicaemia. She died four days later on Sunday 28 October.
More than 2,000 attended a demonstration in memory of Savita Halappanavar outside Leinster House this evening.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Why does somebody have to die before anything is done in this country? RIP
It’s not just “this country”.
Sad, but true.
Considering this, how Ireland got onto the EU Human Rights Council recently is beyond me!
apologies UN Human Rights Council
Because they passed a bill which gives the UN the right to bring in any law into ireland on any day of the week and their is sweet fuk all we can do!
If it does turn out that her death could have been avoided, if the legislation had been enacted, ( which seems likely ), and if her death, in turn leads to the legislation finally being enacted to prevent this avoidable tragedy ever happening again, then I think it is incumbent upon us to at least honour her memory in some way. While I’m not normally a fan of associating victims names with laws, I think in this case it might be the right thing to do. So, premature as my suggestion is, if the legislation is enacted, perhaps we should consider calling it Savitas law in her memory.
plus 1
This would be just a lovely idea . Savinna’s law . I am sure her husband and family would have to agree .
Way past time for the government to be hiding behind an expert group to chicken out of complying with its own Supreme Court’s decision.
Reading comments here and on other places, I’ve never seen anything anger the (at least online) population so much. If they avoided it as a populist agenda before, they’ll be we’ll served addressing it now. While no political party can raise this as a political issue as it was avoided for 20 years, its incumbent amongst all the parties to raise it now as no one in the country wants to see a death attributable again to the catholic ethos. The issue of it only being a lifestyle choice has tragically now clearly been put to bed and The pro life religious groups would do well to keep their heads below the parapet on this one.
Catherine
There was a time when the goal of respectability was enough for everyone and particularly at a time when poverty stalked our land. The use of vulgarity and foul language which comes so easy to you would then have cost you even that status.
because we are a nation of cowards
Not really…..the cowards just always seem to be in charge.
We didn’t need legislation to save this poor woman’s life. It seems to me that the medics involved were reticent to progress to termination either because they feared some backlash, they were confused or they had some religious or moral conviction against it. In any case it’s inexcusable. We now need to sort this out. Legislate for abortion rights now.
Declan – You start with “we don’t need” and finish with “legislate now”.
We do need legislation for this precisely because medics have to confront these issues. By legislating no doctor will ever need to question their actions on cases like this.
Our constitution has been argued by both sides of the pro-life/pro-choice debate as supporting their point. This means that any medic who takes a stand either way may put themselves at risk of ending up in front of a judge who will interpret the poorly worded constitution subjectively. Right now, that’s all there is and in the absence of legislation it will always be that poor wording that is put under the subjective microscope.
Convenient that reilly says that he only got this report in 24 hours .
Eileen are you suggesting that the Taoiseach and the Minister for Health lied about the date on which an Official Report was received by State or are you just using irony to make your points.
Garry Fitzgerald
Not at all . I am so very sorry if you have misunderstood my comment .
I am not suggesting anything of the kind . I am saying in plain English that
the taoiseach and the minister for health are liars and are lying through their
teeth as they have done and continue to do since they came into power in
the government .
I hope this clears up any confusion you may have :)
Ireland 2012 still suffering the fallout from the Catholic Churches iron grip on this nation. Disgusting and shocking after all the damage this organisation has inflicted on this nation to be still able to influence the decision makers within our society. Progress?…
If anyone bothered to listen to her husband or READ the original story the woman did NOT ask for an abortion, she asked for labour to be induced which was declined by the medical profession as it is considered a medical termination once there is a heartbeat present, even though her baby would not have survived at 17 weeks gestation. Her waters had broken 2 days previously and she was open to infection, her death is a direct result of her NOT being given prophylactic antibiotics on case of the possibility of infection because there WAS no guidelines in place for antibiotics prior to 32 weeks gestation. Antibiotics given within 8 hours of the rupture of membranes may have saved her. I say may because I do not know for sure but it bears investigating. As to the miscarriage, in cases like this the legislation needs to be changed to allow for induction when there is no hope of saving the child.
Seriously Patrick…. Have you not read about this horrific nightmare ? I can’t understand it … Then again I can…the ,catholic churches influence on all areas of social policy is still in existence in 2012. I initially thought that this lady died due to the inequalities in our health service. I thought maybe that she didn’t have health insurance.., this would have been bad enough but to die because this ” is a catholic country” is just unbelievable. I’m absolutely appalled. RIP
I feel there is alot more going on as 2 women died in 48 hours in the Coombe hospital after giving birth, While of course this case is horrific I think the hospitals are at a crisis point…and I would question the doctors decision..Was it down to law or budget?
This was an emergency situation! wtf do you think she was doing?
tv news said 500 protesters, as usual they cut numbers’
Inappropriate comment of the year award.
No Pat. She was a dentist and no woman, asylum seeker or not, should have to endure that.
@ Patrick, I’m sorry, do you think asylum seekers or non nationals are second class citizens that don’t deserve to be cared for?? It wasn’t that long ago that Irish ppl were on a boat out of here looking for a better life!! The famine, the 80′s… Last week!! Get your backward head out of the dark ages. RIP Savita and condolences to her family.
What if she was an asylum seeker Patrick. What would have been your reaction? That it was her own fault? That she shouldn’t come to Ireland to have an abortion, that she was was a sponger? What, you little pr**k, would have been your reaction!??
Calmed down a bit now…. FYI as far as I understood she was a dentist.
She might still be alive if the Catholic Church didn’t have a say in medical science in this country. That’s all anyone needs to know.
It’s not like they weren’t warned. Sickening.
It is first noted that the ground upon which a woman can seek a lawful abortion in Ireland is expressed in broad terms: Article 40.3.3, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X case, provides that an abortion is available in Ireland if it is established as a matter of probability that there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as distinct from the health, of the mother, including a risk of self harm, which can only be avoided by a termination of the pregnancy (the X case, cited at paragraphs 39-44 above). While a constitutional provision of this scope is not unusual, no criteria or procedures have been subsequently laid down in Irish law, whether in legislation, case law or otherwise, by which that risk is to be measured or determined, leading to uncertainty as to its precise application. Indeed, while this constitutional provision (as interpreted by the Supreme Court in the X case) qualified sections 58 and 59 of the earlier 1861 Act (see paragraph 145 above), those sections have never been amended so that, on their face, they remain in force with their absolute prohibition on abortion and associated serious criminal offences thereby contributing to the lack of certainty for a woman seeking a lawful abortion in Ireland.
Moreover, whether or not the broad right to a lawful abortion in Ireland for which Article 40.3.3 provides could be clarified by Irish professional medical guidelines as suggested by the Government (and see the High Court judgment in MR v. TR and Others, at paragraph 97 above), the guidelines do not in any event provide any relevant precision as to the criteria by which a doctor is to assess that risk. The Court cannot accept the Government’s argument that the oral submissions to the Committee on the Constitution, and still less obstetric guidelines on ectopic pregnancies from another State, could constitute relevant clarification of Irish law. In any event, the three conditions noted in those oral submissions as accepted conditions requiring medical intervention to save a woman’s life (pre-eclampsia, cancer of the cervix and ectopic pregnancies) were not pertinent to the third applicant’s case.
Furthermore, there is no framework whereby any difference of opinion between the woman and her doctor or between different doctors consulted, or whereby an understandable hesitancy on the part of a woman or doctor, could be examined and resolved through a decision which would establish as a matter of law whether a particular case presented a qualifying risk to a woman’s life such that a lawful abortion might be performed.
what was she doing here asking for an abortion….what was the doctor’s professional opinion?
have you actually bothered to read up on the story?
Read the story Patrick
She was asking for her life to be saved, when it was obvious that her child’s life could not be saved. Is that clear enough?.
What an ignorant comment, you must be some sort of idiot, can you not be bothered to even read the article before posting stupid pure ignorant comments?
So in the space of 4 hours between comments, you still couldn’t be bothered to look up on the story. Are you just waiting for today’s Sun or Daily Mail for your news?
have your say