Dr. doesn't agree that a dying woman should receive an abortion - Eamonn McGuinness

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
30,671
In 2001 Dr. Eamonn McGuinness went to court to prevent two Medical council resolutions.

a) The first was to allow an abortion where there is a risk to a mother's life
b) The second was to allow an abortion when the foetus was no longer viable.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/review-of-resolutions-on-abortion-refused-1.319188

The first resolution stated: ". . . the Medical Council recognises that termination of pregnancy can occur where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of a mother". The second stated: ". . . the Medical Council recognises that termination of pregnancy can occur when the foetus is no longer viable".

Some questions

1. Does that mean he and the other doctors who believe that a woman who is at risk of dying should not be given a life saving abortion
2. Does it mean that he believes that Galway hospital were correct in their treatment of Savita Hallapanavaar.
3. Does he believe that where a foetus is dead that a woman should be forced to continue the pregnancy
 
Last edited:


former wesleyan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 29, 2009
Messages
25,592
Well spotted.
 

cozzy121

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2009
Messages
5,153
Eamonn doesn't want any woman challenging his "superior knowledge" on reproduction. He's probably lamenting the day they got the vote..
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
30,671
Oddly yesterday he was telling the nation that he has had to carry out a termination on a woman who had uterine cancer.

1) Can we know more details of that case - obviously not the woman's name
2) In what year was it
3) What does he mean by 'termination' in the case, is that an abortion or not?
4) How many other terminations has he carried out
5) How many more terminations does he know about

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/retired-doctor-says-8th-amendment-did-not-stop-him-carrying-out-abortion-1.3457341

“I have had to do that myself, working under the auspices of the Eighth Amendment. Where a woman has developed a uterine cancer for example, it has meant that I have had to advise and carry out an early termination of pregnancy. Nothing in the law prevented me from doing so.”

That quote from him is distinctly at odds with his stance in not allowing the medical guidelines to permit doctors to do a termination where the mother's life is at risk?
 

Half Nelson

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2009
Messages
21,430
Very, very misleading thread title, and it's probably libellous.

Carry on. petunia
 

flavirostris

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Messages
24,570
You know what this site needs. Another dead Babbeh thread
 

damus

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
23,512
Oddly yesterday he was telling the nation that he has had to carry out a termination on a woman who had uterine cancer.

1) Can we know more details of that case - obviously not the woman's name
2) In what year was it
3) What does he mean by 'termination' in the case, is that an abortion or not?
4) How many other terminations has he carried out
5) How many more terminations does he know about

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/retired-doctor-says-8th-amendment-did-not-stop-him-carrying-out-abortion-1.3457341

“I have had to do that myself, working under the auspices of the Eighth Amendment. Where a woman has developed a uterine cancer for example, it has meant that I have had to advise and carry out an early termination of pregnancy. Nothing in the law prevented me from doing so.”

That quote from him is distinctly at odds with his stance in not allowing the medical guidelines to permit doctors to do a termination where the mother's life is at risk?
And how does he know with absolute certainty that no woman in the whole of Ireland died or was denied treatment because of the 8th.
 

edg

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
13,408
In 2001 Dr. Eamonn McGuinness went to court to prevent two Medical council resolutions.

a) The first was to allow an abortion where there is a risk to a mother's life
b) The second was to allow an abortion when the foetus was no longer viable.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/review-of-resolutions-on-abortion-refused-1.319188

The first resolution stated: ". . . the Medical Council recognises that termination of pregnancy can occur where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of a mother". The second stated: ". . . the Medical Council recognises that termination of pregnancy can occur when the foetus is no longer viable".

Some questions

1. Does that mean he and the other doctors who believe that a woman who is at risk of dying should not be given a life saving abortion
2. Does it mean that he believes that Galway hospital were correct in their treatment of Savita Hallapanavaar.
3. Does he believe that where a foetus is dead that a woman should be forced to continue the pregnancy
That was his opinion 17 years ago. Are you certain his opinions haven’t changed even slightly in that time? It’s just the title makes it look like this happened recently.
 

sadmal

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
12,065
That was his opinion 17 years ago. Are you certain his opinions haven’t changed even slightly in that time? It’s just the title makes it look like this happened recently.
I think he should have revealed it at the press conference because he did give the impression that the 8th had never prevented him from saving the life of a pregnant woman. Yet he went to court in 2001 to prevent it being part of the Medical council guidelines?
 

Lagertha

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
4,458
It isn't that long ago that it was at the discretion of a doctor as to whether or not he/she would prescribe the pill to women, nothing to do with medicine, but based on personal beliefs. So, if your doctor was against contraception based on their religious beliefs they could refuse to prescribe it. Like wise with condoms, it was only in the early 1990's that the first condom machines were installed in pub toilets, here we are in 2018 and the anti choice people are putting anti abortion posters in the pub toilets.

The same people that didn't want women to have any access to contraceptives then are trying to prevent women accessing abortions now. When I hear the trite slogan ''love them both'', it makes me angry. Angry because not only is that untrue, it's patronising, controlling and misleading. What happens to babies born to women who couldn't access abortions? Do they really think that all those babies are born into loving families to mothers/parents who change their minds and are relieved to have not aborted? What about those children whose mothers didn't want them? The ones who are beaten, starved, neglected and abused? It doesn't take much to see the mask slip from the faces of the ''love them both'' people.

Once the mask slips you see the controlling nasty side, the side that smiles and talks about supporting women, just so long as those women are towing the line. But when those women stop towing the line we start seeing the real side that calls women dirty sluts who need a good slap to remind them were their place is.
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
28,386
Twitter
No
Sweep sweep.

Is ANYONE on the retain side honest?
Just running through the list in my head and to my surprise the majority of the names of those seen to be leading the Forced Birthers are in fact lying bastards of one kind or another.
 

Fats_Portnoy

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
697
In 2001 Dr. Eamonn McGuinness went to court to prevent two Medical council resolutions.

a) The first was to allow an abortion where there is a risk to a mother's life
b) The second was to allow an abortion when the foetus was no longer viable.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/review-of-resolutions-on-abortion-refused-1.319188

The first resolution stated: ". . . the Medical Council recognises that termination of pregnancy can occur where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of a mother". The second stated: ". . . the Medical Council recognises that termination of pregnancy can occur when the foetus is no longer viable".

Some questions

1. Does that mean he and the other doctors who believe that a woman who is at risk of dying should not be given a life saving abortion
2. Does it mean that he believes that Galway hospital were correct in their treatment of Savita Hallapanavaar.
3. Does he believe that where a foetus is dead that a woman should be forced to continue the pregnancy
It seems a little unfair to quote him from 17 years ago as any views he holds may well have substantially changed since then. Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall so on what grounds did he challenge it? Often things can be challenged on procedural grounds rather than points of principle.
Still the fact that he performed an abortion when he deemed it medically necessary is lost on you, so much for the 'chilling effect'
 

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
28,386
Twitter
No
Actually seeing as none of the Forced Birthers seen to be leading the FB stance are prepared to admit its because they found Mr Jesus under the bed one day they are in fact ALL lying bastards.
 

sadmal

Well-known member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
12,065
It isn't that long ago that it was at the discretion of a doctor as to whether or not he/she would prescribe the pill to women, nothing to do with medicine, but based on personal beliefs. So, if your doctor was against contraception based on their religious beliefs they could refuse to prescribe it. Like wise with condoms, it was only in the early 1990's that the first condom machines were installed in pub toilets, here we are in 2018 and the anti choice people are putting anti abortion posters in the pub toilets.

The same people that didn't want women to have any access to contraceptives then are trying to prevent women accessing abortions now. When I hear the trite slogan ''love them both'', it makes me angry. Angry because not only is that untrue, it's patronising, controlling and misleading. What happens to babies born to women who couldn't access abortions? Do they really think that all those babies are born into loving families to mothers/parents who change their minds and are relieved to have not aborted? What about those children whose mothers didn't want them? The ones who are beaten, starved, neglected and abused? It doesn't take much to see the mask slip from the faces of the ''love them both'' people.

Once the mask slips you see the controlling nasty side, the side that smiles and talks about supporting women, just so long as those women are towing the line. But when those women stop towing the line we start seeing the real side that calls women dirty sluts who need a good slap to remind them were their place is.
Those behind LoveBoth slogan and similar are the same people who first campaigned against contraceptives, then divorce, gay rights and SSM.
Some of the same people are still involved like the Mathuna family formerly of Youth Defence and people like William Binchy and John O'Reilly. All of them are motivated by religious fervour and none of them have ever shown any previous regard for women or children.
 
Last edited:

Lumpy Talbot

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Messages
28,386
Twitter
No
It seems a little unfair to quote him from 17 years ago as any views he holds may well have substantially changed since then. Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall so on what grounds did he challenge it? Often things can be challenged on procedural grounds rather than points of principle.
Still the fact that he performed an abortion when he deemed it medically necessary is lost on you, so much for the 'chilling effect'
There was a letter much quoted and bruited about this site last week from a bunch of gynoes taking a Forced Birther line on repeal of the 8th and throughout the letter they only referred to delivery of already-dead foetuses. Which addressed neither the current debate or acknowledged the times when abortion is necessary.

I'm beginning to wonder just how many members of the O'Taliban are tucked away in Irish medical settings. I'm also quite concerned that a bunch of gynoes of the FB persuasion don't actually seem to understand what abortion is- which is surprising given their specialised subject.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

It seems a little unfair to quote him from 17 years ago as any views he holds may well have substantially changed since then. Unfortunately the article is behind a paywall so on what grounds did he challenge it? Often things can be challenged on procedural grounds rather than points of principle.
Still the fact that he performed an abortion when he deemed it medically necessary is lost on you, so much for the 'chilling effect'
In fact it would appear that his objection to the resolutions was based on their not being based on the law applying at the time. In that he was correct in that at the time the 8th had not been legislated for!
 

Fats_Portnoy

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
697
In fact it would appear that his objection to the resolutions was based on their not being based on the law applying at the time. In that he was correct in that at the time the 8th had not been legislated for!
So it looks like he and others were objecting to guidelines that had no/unclear basis in law. that sounds like common sense to me.
 
D

Deleted member 17573

So it looks like he and others were objecting to guidelines that had no/unclear basis in law. that sounds like common sense to me.
Yes - and there also appear to be some issues relating to alleged non-adherence to internal procedures.
 


New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top