Failure by doctors to diagnose a cyst on the brain.

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,862
The family have also complained that she was initially told that a scan was not possible because she was pregnant. If risk to the foetus took priority over her health, then that's likely to be down to the 8th, whether or not she was told that explicitly.


You're also getting all sorts of facts wrong, not just gynaecological matters - and always, always, in the service of your pro 8th agenda. It's gone and it's never coming back.

Anyway, shouldn't your ignorance of gynaecological matters lead you to query your own assumptions? Instead of which you post as though you had made some discovery that everyone else had missed. And always, again, trying to find some way to cling to the notion that the 8th was grand really, just badly applied or something. 😙
The 8th prohibited abortion, not treatment that woud unintentionally put the foetus at risk - principle of double-effect.
 


davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,862
Why do you think women and girls of child bearing age are always asked the date of their last period before they are given an
X ray for any part of their body, even a limb?
I've addressed that point with an article about CT scans during pregnancy that I've linked. I don't see what a woman's period has got to do with it.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,862
Anyway, shouldn't your ignorance of gynaecological matters lead you to query your own assumptions? Instead of which you post as though you had made some discovery that everyone else had missed. And always, again, trying to find some way to cling to the notion that the 8th was grand really, just badly applied or something. 😙
If the 8th prohibited life-saving medical treatment for pregnant women then women who had ectopic pregnancies in Ireland wouldn't have been able to have life-saving surgery - they were!

Ireland in the era of the 8th wasn't like El Salvador or Nicaragua, you know!
 

Cdebru

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2006
Messages
6,033



This case has been discussed on the "Post-8th Discussion" thread.

However, this OP concerns the failure to diagnose the cyst. If a pregnant woman goes to hospital and complains of a severe pain in the head, isn't the doctor who is responsible for her care supposed to consider all possible diagnoses instead of dismissing the ailment as a migraine or some other non-fatal condition?

Why did the doctor in this case fail to consider the possibility of a brain cyst?

So everyone who reports a severe headache should have a brain scan ?

Can you imagine how many people report severe headaches every day ?
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,862
So everyone who reports a severe headache should have a brain scan ?

Can you imagine how many people report severe headaches every day ?
There probably aren't many women in the second or third trimester with severe headaches.
 

Orbit v2

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2010
Messages
12,345
The 8th prohibited abortion, not treatment that woud unintentionally put the foetus at risk - principle of double-effect.
I know of one case, where a pregnant woman had cancer and couldn't receive any treatment until after her baby was born. I don't think the issue was "intention" as such, it was simply that the treatment would have had a very bad effect on the foetus/baby and would effectively be an abortion. So, it didn't happen, whether it was allowed or not is secondary.
 

MsDaisyC

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 3, 2017
Messages
4,326
The 8th prohibited abortion, not treatment that woud unintentionally put the foetus at risk - principle of double-effect.
You haven't the first clue, do you. Prior to the referendum, many women told of treatment delayed due to being forced into a pregnancy test before ANY diagnosis for breaks, fractures, concussions, infections etc. Medications are denied, including moderate to strong painkillers until a woman or girl's pregnancy status could be established.
I've had important scans deferred because they were at the wrong time in my cycle (ie I could have been pregnant) and had to wait until I actually had my period.
 

ffc

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 6, 2007
Messages
5,272
A CT scan on the head would not harm the foetus.

This patient could have had a CT scan quite safely, though there is always an element of risk in using ionising radiation. It's possible the condition might have been detected with an MR scan, which doesn't use radiation and is, therefore, a possible alternative for pregnant women.

It's true that she might not have died if she had been diagnosed before the condition became catastrophic.

But retrospective medicine is the easiest science in the world. Making judgements based on good medical practice, evidence based research and use of limited resources is what doctors have to do, at the time, in the moment. Sometimes they make the wrong call.

Like all medics, the teams will use the incident to review their practices, change protocols, if necessary, to ensure they learn from it and minimise the chances of it happening again.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
32,293
The 8th prohibited abortion, not treatment that woud unintentionally put the foetus at risk - principle of double-effect.
No. Double effect is religious doctrine, it has no legal or medical value outside of theology.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
32,293
If the 8th prohibited life-saving medical treatment for pregnant women then women who had ectopic pregnancies in Ireland wouldn't have been able to have life-saving surgery - they were!

Ireland in the era of the 8th wasn't like El Salvador or Nicaragua, you know!
Despite the wishes of some, ectopic pregnancies were an exception because the SC, in its ruling on IVF embryos, had found that only pregnancies already implanted in the uterus were protected by the 8th. And I assume you know that an ectopic pregnancy is not in the uterus, right? So that doesn't prove what you think it proves. Yet again.
 

Sync

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Messages
30,612
There probably aren't many women in the second or third trimester with severe headaches.
Take a wild guess as to one of the causes of migraines in pregnant women. Hint: it’s an adjective in the preceding sentence.
 

davidcameron

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
8,862
Despite the wishes of some, ectopic pregnancies were an exception because the SC, in its ruling on IVF embryos, had found that only pregnancies already implanted in the uterus were protected by the 8th. And I assume you know that an ectopic pregnancy is not in the uterus, right? So that doesn't prove what you think it proves. Yet again.
As you said, that ruling was about IVF embryos (I recall that the plaintiff wanted to have the embryos implanted but her ex-husband did not), not ectopic pregnancies. Different ball game!
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
32,293
As you said, that ruling was about IVF embryos (I recall that the plaintiff wanted to have the embryos implanted but her ex-husband did not), not ectopic pregnancies. Different ball game!
No, the ruling also applied (implicitly or by extension), to all unimplanted embryos. That's also why the MAP was not banned.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
32,455
If the 8th prohibited life-saving medical treatment for pregnant women then women who had ectopic pregnancies in Ireland wouldn't have been able to have life-saving surgery - they were!

Ireland in the era of the 8th wasn't like El Salvador or Nicaragua, you know!
Groan.
Wonderful, we weren’t as bad as those two countries. Do you ever think about what you’ve written. You think it’s GOOD we’re not as bad as El Salvador. That Irish women should consider themselvest that lucky.
 

Emily Davison

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 9, 2013
Messages
32,455
I know of one case, where a pregnant woman had cancer and couldn't receive any treatment until after her baby was born. I don't think the issue was "intention" as such, it was simply that the treatment would have had a very bad effect on the foetus/baby and would effectively be an abortion. So, it didn't happen, whether it was allowed or not is secondary.
And sometimes the women weren’t told why they couldn’t have treatment. Not that they were given a choice in the matter. Most pregnant women would actually chose to delay treatment. Because we actually want to do the best for our babies,
 

Catahualpa

Well-known member
Joined
May 12, 2019
Messages
2,048
Website
irelandinhistory.blogspot.com
And sometimes the women weren’t told why they couldn’t have treatment. Not that they were given a choice in the matter. Most pregnant women would actually chose to delay treatment. Because we actually want to do the best for our babies,
Ah - I see they are back to being 'Babies' again....
 

CatullusV

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2018
Messages
6,567
If the 8th prohibited life-saving medical treatment for pregnant women then women who had ectopic pregnancies in Ireland wouldn't have been able to have life-saving surgery - they were!

Ireland in the era of the 8th wasn't like El Salvador or Nicaragua, you know!
An ectopic pregnancy doesn't involve an abortion.
 


Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top