@ willard – Quote – As Dr. Peter Boylan said, if they had given a termination when legally allowed, it wouldn’t have stopped her dying.

If they had when it was illegal, before her condition deteriorated, she would probably still be alive. The point being it wouldn’t have been preemptive at that point and just a straight out abortion as her life was not at risk at that point. -

And that system/attitude has killed a young woman who should never have died. the baby would have died regardless of doctors action or inaction.

i agree rip savita no womam should ever have gone throught this

My heart go’s out to her husband who now has a huge void in his life, may the universe bless him and help him come to terms with this dreadful situation, r.i.p
Yet again the stupidity of the catholic religion controlling peoples lives, and the government not endorsing every woman’s right to have the treatment that is necessary for a termination.

@ Willard. I, for one, am glad he’s fighting to establish culpability. In the hopes that something like this never happens again to any citizen of this country.

Ah! The deleted comments of the journal! People express an opinion and then won’t defend it!

Colm, the coroner and the jury don’t share your view.

They’re starting now, trying to whitewash the “catholic” angle out of it. Article 40.3.3 killed Savita.

Yes Bridet it is there. X needs to be legalised and put into law ASAP. Thanks for the support Briget. It’s a great “catholic” country that we can kill mothers and their babies and claim its the right thing to do. Hope those anti women groups are ashamed of themselves. Hope this is the end of Youth Defence and other such groups.

The situation should never have gotten to that critical stage in the first place.
Spin it how you want.

Yes, Bridget, clearly you know more than the coroner who recommended clarification of circumstances in which an abortion should be made available.

She would have got the termination she asked for in most other western countries and would be alive today Bridget. That is a fact. She died because she was unfortunate to live in backward “Catholic” Ireland.

Let’s hope.

Legislating for X though, would not help in situations like Savita’s. Getting rid of the 8th Amendment would.

“X needs to be legalised” is a comment that betrays you as being way out of your depth. Rulings of the Supreme Court ARE the law. It’s impossible to ‘legalise’ them and even if it were possible it wouldn’t be necessary

Umm, no. The Supreme Court has actually said in judgements that legislation is needed to give effect to the Constitution (in the case regarding the blasphemy provision in the constitution).. Accordingly, it was legislated for. You seem a bit out of your depth.

Umm, no. The Supreme Court has done the exact opposite. They have found that unenumerrated rights have the full force of the constitution e.g. The right to privacy in Magee

Why on earth would the constitution need lesser forms of law to give it effect? That makes no sense

Gerry,

“Kill babies and mothers”..
Agh I think you will find that the Pro Life people are fighting to stop the killings of babies..
Poor savita died to medical misadventure ..

Medical treatment would have been given if there wasn’t a failure in the system of her treatment..

An abortion wasn’t needed when she asked for one, when doctors planed to induce her unfortunately it was to late.. But that was due to the failure to recognise septicaemia..

Of course it will be “twisted” and a “spin” put on it to support abortion..
But that still won’t alter the facts..

Bridget but the killing of mothers is not a concern for Pro Lifers? Now that’s just weird.

If a woman wants an abortion, she should be allowed have one…. End of…. Right or wrong

Yeah, you clearly don’t have a law degree. Striking DOWN laws which are contrary to the Bunreacht na hEireann is within the Court’s jurisdiction, but is not competent to draft laws to give effect to constitutional provisions. McGee was striking a law down, if you’ve ever read it?

While if the Offences Against the Person Act was challenged by a woman with a risk to her life, it would likely be struck down, the Court would be unable to draft new legislation to enforce the 8th Amendment.

I think you’ll find, if you read the report, that “The verdict of misadventure does not mean that system failure or deficiencies contributed to her death” and ‘clarified that the medical misadventure is not cause of death nor a contributory cause of death.’ That was what the jury ruled on, they havn’t said it was miscommunication that caused her death, in fact it was previously said at the hearing that an abortion would have saved her life.

I’d rather 10 aborted fetuses than one dead, functioning member of society with a life, a job, a family, friends, hopes and dreams.

Yes aoifa,
Dr Boylan ( a known pro abortion) doctor did say that But it was also said that when the time she asked for one she did not need it…

Bridget.
International best practice when a woman presents with ruptured membranes, a dilated cervix and elevated white blood cell count is delivery regardless of gestational age – so in this case, as the foetus had no chance of survival out of the womb it would be an abortion.

Has it ever occurred to you that the reason he is a “pro abortion” doctor is because he’s a good one? As in, one who follows best medical practice?

Shanti
So are you saying that ever anti “abortion doctor” is “bad” and don’t follow best practice???
Even her own doctor was going to induce labour when they discovered she had sept, unfortunately it was the lapsed standard in care that resulted in her not getting the treatment in time..

Shanti Om,

Still banging on looking for Abortion-on-Demand? Even after her husband asked that her death not be used in the debate, yea totally disrespect the man’s wishes and continue on pushing your agenda.

The “pro-choice” baby murdering machine knows no bounds. Cop on.

Daniel. Where did I mention abortion on demand? I referred to best medical practice for the things that Savita presented with – it was relevant, it is considered best practice and what you have done is trotted out a nice straw man for everyone. By all means continue to knock the stuffing out of it.

Bridget.
It’s called best medical practice for a reason, because it’s tried and tested and has the best outcome. So yes – if a doctor would let their ideology get in the way of best practice then they aren’t really doing their job very well.

Shanti Om,

How many times have you jumped into articles regarding Savita since it came to light last November?
You clearly have demonstrated on other articles your stance on abortion. The straw man in your argunent is that abortion saves lives… it doesn’t. A baby dies almost EVERY time ~(barring the few that do survive abortion only to be murdered on the table).
What happened poor Savita was deplorable and is a sad reflection on some of the staff in the Galway hospital – not Ireland’s anti-abortion laws. Yes there is lack of clarity surrounding the “immediate danger and risk to the mother’s life” that needs proper guidelines to be introduced – but on the other hand, 20 to 30 abortions are legally carried out every year in similar circumstances in Ireland already – whenever has there been a doctor prosecuted?
But throwing open the doors to abortion-on-demand is not the answer which is what you and many of the pro-choice are continually pushing for.

Well Daniel, had you read any of my contributions you may have realised that this is kinda relevant to me as were my contraception to fail and I fall pregnant – I too would be in a potentially life threatening situation, but like Savita – it would have to progress to a pretty late stage before the doctors could do anything.. So forgive me for taking an interest..

Daniel, what right do you think you have, making personal comments like that? You do realise that half of the people in this country are women, and a huge chunk of those women will be pregnant at some point in their lives or have been before, right? You do realise that they have an actual stake in this debate – a physical stake. They are entitled to voice their opinions as many times as they like!

At this stage, I am in shock by how doggedly some people refuse to concede and accept the reality of the situation here. A bit of decency and respect is in order.

The reality of the case is that there are TWO parties that have a PHYSICAL stake in all this Eleen…

Mortality due to severe maternal sepsis has increased in the UK and is now the leading cause of direct maternal death in the UK and that is a fact… that is DESPITE the United Kingdom having one of the most liberal (sickening) abortion laws in the world…

Link: https://www.npeu.ox.ac.uk/ukoss/current-surveillance/ss#r2

So it begs the question… what are the pro-choice side really campaigning for?

Scroll up to the top of the page I linked to – it jumps straight to the citations at the bottom.

Yeah on demand is the only way to HO now. Strange I would not have had that view a few years ago but when I listen to the anti women bible bashing pre historic fools it changed my mind. Thanks youth defence and the other conservative catholic organisations you do a great job promoting on demand abortion.

Didn’t see anyone quoting bible on here but maybe i missed that

I think you will find that it is always the pro abortion supporters that bring religion into the debate..
Gerry, really I Can’t imagine any debate on this site, that would change anyone’s mind who was truly a true Pro Life or a pro-abortion advocator…

Firstly, the pro-choice side are campaigning for the government to stop ignoring the people’s wishes and violating the democratic process of this country. Secondly, you do realise that those who have stated that we need clarity in relation to abortion access are doctors, the jury in this case, and the majority of Irish citizens – right?

Gerry’s right – I’ve seen quite a lot of people who were staunchly pro-life before start to question their beliefs thanks to the Savita case (which, by the way, has given a lot of women the courage to speak up about their appalling treatment in this country when they were pregnant) and to the blind ignorance to the truth and lack of compassion expressed the pro-life campaign.

Generally, people use logic, reason and compassion when they make their minds up about these kinds of things, you see, and while quite a few people don’t believe in abortion “on demand”, they do believe women need more freedom and respect when it comes to their healthcare – and that means greater access to abortion.

Jackie have you not being following this at all.. She didn’t die because if catholic ways..

How was her death due to “Catholic ways”?

did you pay attention at any stage during the case?

that reply was to Continent sorry

Did I not read about a doctor saying at the inquest that an abortion would’ve have saved her life?

Did the Pope say “blood samples must not be properly followed up”?

She did…

Because no f”"‘ker has the ball’s in the empty church’s in this catholic ” country to admit there wrong

Her Death was Caused by Catholicism which is why abortion is forbidden. She demanded an abortion and was told in response to that demand, “This is a Catholic Country”, and they stood by and allowed her to die before their eyes, refusing to save her life based on Catholicism. If you have any other understanding of this case, you are wrong.

Her Death was Caused by Catholicism which is why abortion is forbidden. She demanded an abortion and was told in response to that demand, “This is a Catholic Country”, and they stood by and allowed her to die before their eyes, refusing to save her life based on Catholicism. If you have any other understanding of this case, you are wrong.

Kim.. What have you been reading???

Problem with a lot of Catholics is they forget that to be a Catholic they first have to be Christian…

The remark about it being a catholic country is neither here nor there, it was made by a member of staff trying to explain why it is not legal in Ireland to perform an abortion…. The simple facts are the tests were not followed up, her care was substandard, there have only ever been 5 cases of this level of sepsis and this poor woman was sadly the first to have died from it. The fact of the matter still is Ireland is still the safest place to have a baby, safer than any other country that offer abortion! This case is beyond heart breaking but still does not warrent abortion on demand etc the finding was medical standards not lack of abortion even tho it is mentioned after the findings

Ireland is not the safest place to have a baby. It used to be, but not any more. Secondly, abortion rates don’t have anything to do with maternal mortality rates. You’ve been misguided I’m afraid.

Sinead, where are you getting that information that Ireland is safer to have a baby than countries that offer abortion?

Sinead.
The safest place in the world to have a baby is actually Sweden. And they have abortion..

No safer than France, Belgium or Switzerland, all of which have access to legal abortion.

Sinead Fox: (1) Where is your proof that there have only ever been 5 cases of sepsis, and that Savita was the first woman to die in this manner? (2) Who is asking for “abortion on demand?” Certainly not Savita and Praveen. Savita just needed to be treated with respect and dignity, and asked for a medical termination to save her life! (3) What has the assumption that “Ireland is the safest place to have a baby” got to do with Savita’s case, or the cases of hundreds of pregnant women who are disrespected and treated shamefully every year in Ireland. It is not the same thing at all.

Sinead, you should not assume that everyone who upholds a woman’s right to life, over and above the “rights” of a foetus that is threatening her very life, is in favour of “abortion on demand”. To say such is untrue, misleading, and even cruel.

All except mine. I must be special.

“No. HI think Secularist’s argument is that it starts to exist when it becomes aware of itself – hence “cognitive ability”.”

Before there is self awareness there is no self, so yeah that’s part of it. I’d also throw in the inability to experience any kind of pain. If you can’t experience experience, you can’t experience pain. You need a functioning brain and fully connected central nervous system for that.

Your comment came through after the others were deleted. Bizarre, there was nothing remotely offensive and it was completely on topic.

Yep. It all looks a bit silly now and a little out of place without the context of the responses. Some job by the editing staff….

Wait for it…….

*pink*

Oh still here…

For now.

@Briget The nurse who said it came forward and admitted saying it. There’s no debate about that. Read the articles about it. Your comments are childish and contradictory and pointless most times.

Yes Aoifa
a Nurse did come forward and say it her husband even “forgave” her for the comment..

But the fact is the doctor in charge never said it and that wasn’t the reason she didn’t receive an abortion when she first asked for it..

It was not needed at that stage and when they were going to induce her unfortunately it was to late because they never recognised sept in time..

And was that sept not caused by a dying organism in her body? The infection was in the placenta. The feotus was never going to survive, why let it rot inside her, worsening her condition rather than remove it? The answer is because it’s a Catholic country. The foetus should have been removed as soon as they new it was not going to survive.

…and you’re saying that at the time she didn’t need one but on the contrary you’re agreeing the doctor said it would have saved her life.

Bridget, you keep saying that when she asked for an abortion, she didn’t need it and that when they went to induce her, it was too late. Obviously then, when she asked for it, she DID need it. Failure to remove the unviable foetus caused the sepsis which killed her. She should have been given the termination when her life was still saveable.

Bridget. Please, pay attention. If she had been given the abortion when she asked for it then she would be alive today. The only reason the doctor didn’t consider giving her an abortion until she was in a really bad way was because of the 8th Amendment..
Twisting stuff in such a blatant way will cause you to look either wilfully ignorant or like a complete liar, may I suggest you take another read of the facts there..

International best practice was ignored because of Ireland’s “pro life” laws.

The unborn baby was not the cause of the sepsis and so there was no good reason to terminate it as Savita’s life did not seem to be at risk.

Dr. Hema Divakar, President-elect of the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India speaking to the Hindu Times said:

“Delay or refusal to terminate the pregnancy does not in itself seem to be the cause of death.
Even if the law permitted it, it is not as if her life would have been saved because of termination.
Severe septicaemia with disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), a life-threatening bleeding disorder which is a complication of sepsis, major organ damage and loss of the mother’s blood due to severe infection, is the cause of death in Savita’s case.
This is what seems to have happened and this is a sequence which cannot be reversed just by terminating the pregnancy.”

The law in Ireland is clear, section 21:4 of the Medical Council Guide for Registered Practitioners says this:

“In current obstetrical practice, rare complications can arise where therapeutic intervention (including termination of a pregnancy) is required at a stage when, due to extreme immaturity of the baby, there may be little or no hope of the baby surviving. In these exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.”

The law in Ireland does not prevent a termination from being carried out, if the life of the mother is at risk and as Dr Astbury testified, had she known the severity of the situation she would have intervened earlier..

Had the initial blood tests been followed up on, and 4 hourly observations undertaken, then perhaps the tragedy may not have unfolded.

What seems clear is that the infection was present upon admittance to hospital and that it is unlikely that an abortion would have cured the infection and potentially could have hastened Savita’s death.

by the time that the infection was noted, things had already progressed too far. The infection was obviously incredibly aggressive and Savita’s condition deteriorated so rapidly..

Bridgit, That is one hard nosed consultant who was asked in front of witnesses on Day 3, Tuesday to perform an abortion but after refusing, on Wednesday morning did not even bother to check Savita’s chart after a very rough night for the patient, which was ‘with another Doctor’.

After coming in fully dilated, leaking fluids and a uterine rupture, this poor young woman ended up spontaneously miscarrying after 4 days of suffering. Is it coincidental that after leaving her alone long enough for the foetal heartbeat to stop, the Doctor finally appeared and was prepared to abort only when it was too late to do it?

‘Threat to life’ does not happen in a clinical time vacuum; it must be preceded by a threat to the health of the mother. Most Doctors would have aborted, why not this one? Who would have sued her, the Halappanavar’s? I don’t think so. The State? Definitely not, as that would expose the barking mad ‘Deliver or Die’ eight amendment. No, She was abiding by a pro-life law she believed in, in my opinion.

Bacteria do not carry a government health warning or an estimated time of arrival.

…..And by the way Bridget , If a rare complication occurs where termination of pregnancy is required before the foetus is viable, why does the Irish Medical council need to add a caveat ”while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby”, which at the very least weakens the life saving act if not wholly negate it?

Are they afraid that in the rush to save the life of a mother, they might kill a foetus/baby that is going to die regardless?
Surely that would be covered by due diligence.

Séan, it’s a Coroner’s Court verdict. Did you pay attention at any stage during the cae?

I did. I was referring to the case as a whole.

Her Death was Caused by Catholicism which is why abortion is forbidden. She demanded an abortion and was told in response to that demand, “This is a Catholic Country”, and they stood by and allowed her to die before their eyes, refusing to save her life based on Catholicism. If you have any other understanding of this case, you are wrong. Had she been given an abortion when she demanded it, she would be alive today, celebrating her wedding anniversary planning more children in the future. END. OF. STORY. If you have any other version in your head about what happened here, then you are being willfully ignorant. This is the official story that BOTH of them have stated since they both entered the hospital and has remained unchanged since only her husband left the hospital-alone-with his wife dead inside it. DO NOT white-wash this into something that is a LIE. By doing that you are calling both her and her husband liars and you have no right to blaspheme their memory in that way. SHAME ON YOU!

Gerry
Abortion is barbarity..

Gerry, yours is the kind of comment I feel has characterised this case from the beginning. You are wrong about me, I am prochoice. I also have many advantages over you in commenting on this case. I care for women in Savita’s situation and yes I have performed terminations for women whose life is in danger. Our job would be easier if there was legislation and yes I think if Savita had a termination on the monday or tuesday she would probably be alive so from that point of view it is a tragedy. I have also cared for patients who have got very sick, very quickly from sepsis. It is a very scary situation for all involved. I hope Savita’s case will help some women in the future, in fact I am sure it will. but women will still continue to from sepsis

Bridget

Leaving women to die from a septic foetus is barbarity. Shame you didn’t spare a thought for the women in your comment.

Yes Pen,
Your right, it was terrible, even chief operating officer at the hospital said their was a lapse in standard of care provided..

Narrow minded fool brigit

Sorry Donal Misunderstood your comment. Your right

Narrow minded because I disagree with you, how very broad minded of you :)

Daniel…what you say may be true but does not, in any way, detract from the fact that if she had been given the termination when it was determined that the foetus was not viable she’d be alive today. Read Dr. Boylan’s evidence (para.9) in this piece.http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/boylan-evidence-brings-further-clarity-to-events-in-death-of-savita-halappanavar-1.1363837

My comment seems to have disappeared. Reason?

No, it couldn’t be the fact that the doctors couldn’t do anything until it was too late (ie: her life as distinct from her health was in danger). It was all cutbacks, they managed to prioritise the dying foetus just fine..

No, I think you will find that they neglected their duty to savita, in not providing the proper medical care she needed, not following blood test, checking vital signs, not examining her etc all which led to the wrong treatment of sepsis and her unfortunate death..