• Due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software, some users were "banned" when they tried to change their passwords at the end of February. This does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you were affected by this, please us viua the Contact us link in the footer.

Iona Institute come out in support of liberal abortion regime


seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
In a stunning interview on RTE's Marian Finucane program this morning, Breda O’Brien, a patron of Iona Institute explained that in her view, doctors involved in Savita's care should have aborted the pregnancy on the basis of an elevated white cell count alone.

Essentially, the Iona Institute says that the a threat to the health of the mother, not her life, should be enough reason to abort a fetus.

This is a truly stunning development in conservative catholic thinking, and puts them at odds with the doctors organisation IMO (Doctors reject abortion motions at IMO conference - RTÉ News) which is against considering the health of women patients.

The interview can be heard here: (Listen to RTE)

Transcript is here: Transcript (Important bit is at the end).
 


petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,721
Yes, I heard that too, seabhcan. Surprising change of heart, wasn't it?

(I wasn't sure how elevated she thinks the WBC would have to be, because imuic, a bad cold or a random unnoticed virus can give an abnormal reading. She sounded positively extremist!)
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
48,254
She's right though. This woman was in grave danger that Monday and should have had an abortion.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
48,254
She never said white blood cell count alone.

The real story was Peter Boylan minimising the catalogue of errors and malpractice in Galway.
Shocking...
Not missing, ignoring. Shocking really. Prof Bonner's view did not tally with Dr Boylan on Primetime. Thank goodness, or many women would have died unnecessarily in this State. Prof Bonner made the point that he doesn't wait for a woman to be acutely ill if there is e.g. an ectopic pregnancy, before performing an abortion. The Master of the Rotunda Dr Sam Coulter Smith told the IMO recently that he has performed 4 abortions in the past year when infection was of concern.

I carried out four abortions in past year to save lives, says doctor - Independent.ie

Prime Time - RTÉ Player
 
Last edited:

seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
She's right though. This woman was in grave danger that Monday and should have had an abortion.
If the Iona Institute now says that the health of women should be a consideration in their care - they have my support. Unfortunately, it is unconstitutional to consider women's health in these matters, and we will need a new referendum to correct that.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,721
She's right though. This woman was in grave danger that Monday and should have had an abortion.
Especially given that she had requested one, because the foetus was dying anyway. What precisely was to be gained by extra testing, other than increase the risks she ran?
 

Radix

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 31, 2010
Messages
10,031
Threat to health COULD be enough reason to terminate a pregnancy, not SHOULD be enough reason.

Good medical practice dictates that a holistic approach be taken with an emphasis on situational awareness as every single case is different. For example, no two mothers share the exact same level of health. A health risk for one may be less of a risk for another and vice versa.

The legislation should confirm best practice, even if mistakes will occur. But what it should not be doing is writing into the statute books that abortion is somehow a 'treatment' for feelings of self harm.
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,721
Not missing, ignoring. Shocking really. Prof Bonner's view did not tally with Dr Boylan. Thank goodness, or many women would have died unnecessarily in this State.
Yes, but from what Professor Bonnar said on Primetime, it really is not clear that he actually respects the law. He just goes ahead and terminates when he judges it clinically necessary. That isn't the same thing as saying the law itself is not responsible for causing Savita Halappanavar's death.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
48,254
Yes, but from what Professor Bonnar said on Primetime, it really is not clear that he actually respects the law. He just goes ahead and terminates when he judges it clinically necessary. That isn't the same thing as saying the law itself is not responsible for causing Savita Halappanavar's death.
Of course he and many of his colleagues terminate pregnancies when they believe it clinically necessary, would you rather they wait and risk a woman dying?
 

seabhcan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
14,327
Yes, but from what Professor Bonnar said on Primetime, it really is not clear that he actually respects the law. He just goes ahead and terminates when he judges it clinically necessary.
Brave man. However, its unlikely that he (or anyone else) would be prosecuted for breaking the law. The law as it stands is unconstitutional, so the state hasn't used to it prosecute anyone since the 80's out of fear the supreme court would throw out the law.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
48,254
Yes, I heard that too, seabhcan. Surprising change of heart, wasn't it?

(I wasn't sure how elevated she thinks the WBC would have to be, because imuic, a bad cold or a random unnoticed virus can give an abnormal reading. She sounded positively extremist!)
She made the point correctly that a raised WBC along with the other factors should have raised alarm bells. It didn't. It's not about the 1983 amendment, it's about sub standard care.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
48,254
Brave man. However, its unlikely that he (or anyone else) would be prosecuted for breaking the law. The law as it stands is unconstitutional, so the state hasn't used to it prosecute anyone since the 80's out of fear the supreme court would throw out the law.
Brave? He's doing his job. Like many of his colleagues throughout this State. They have been doing this for decades which is why Ireland is cited as being one of the safest places to have a pregnancy.

I'm surprised Sync hasn't been along to merge this thread like s/he has with every other abortion thread opened.
 

Destiny's Soldier

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,377
The Dr I heard on Marian's show this moring had total disregard for anyone else opinion other than his own.

His tone was essentially condescending and intolerant to the point of being rude.

He said disparingly, (constantly interrupting) Pregnancy was the only time when a woman doesn't have control over the medical procedures performed on her own body.

Well that's the way it is and always will be. Pregnancy involves 2 bodies.

Abortion is not about getting rid of just a tumour. It's about a tumour with eyes, a brain, a CNS, 2 arms, 2 legs and beating heart.
 

Skyrocket

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
3,904
She made the point correctly that a raised WBC along with the other factors should have raised alarm bells. It didn't. It's not about the 1983 amendment, it's about sub standard care.
I don't believe for one minute that Dr. Astbury was pondering the legalities of a termination when "caring" for Savita.

It is a convenient diversion from her own mistakes in the clinical management of Savita.
 

ger12

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 25, 2011
Messages
48,254
It COULD only be a reason if we change our constitution. Our constitution says doctors are forbidden to take into account a threat health. Only a clear risk to life can be a consideration.
Sepsis is a clear threat to life. Why do you think the HSE has introduced an early warning system for hospitals to detect the early signs of sepsis? And a pan European Surviving Sepsis Campaign started some years ago ...
 

petaljam

Moderator
Joined
Nov 23, 2012
Messages
30,721
Of course he and many of his colleagues terminate pregnancies when they believe it clinically necessary, would you rather they wait and risk a woman dying?
Personally I think that only the clinical opinion, and the wishes of the couple concerned, should be taken into account.

But that is not what the law says.

Are you really saying that it is reasonable to expect medical staff to be prepared to break the law if they estimate to be in their patients' best interests?
 

Skyrocket

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
3,904
Sepsis is a clear threat to life. Why do you think the HSE has introduced an early warning system for hospitals to detect the early signs of sepsis? And a pan European Surviving Sepsis Campaign started some years ago ...
Spot on.

Have a look at the 2012 UK guidelines on the importance of prompt identification of sepsis in pregnancy:

"Healthcare professionals should be aware of the symptoms of maternal sepsis and early referral to hospital may be life saving, say two new guidelines published today by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

Sepsis is caused by a bacterial infection and during and after pregnancy is an important cause of maternal death in the UK. This was highlighted in the 2011 Confidential Enquiry into maternal deaths."


http://www.rcog.org.uk/news/rcog-release-early-referral-maternal-sepsis-could-be-life-saving-say-new-guidelines
 

New Threads

Popular Threads

Most Replies

Top