• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

The Coroners Act 1962: Time to tell Praveen and Michael Martin where to get off.


potholedogger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
1,238
The rush to rubbish any of the initiatives by the agents of the State to investigate the Savita Tragedy is getting out of hand.

Praveen should cooperate with every effort by the agents of the State if there is even the slightest prospect that doing so might save a single life.

Michael Martin has plunged in to undermine the efforts of the agents of the State in investigating the Tragedy, calling for an Independent Enquiry, with foreign experts from outside the country to establish the full circumstances.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny, wisely stated that "I don't think we should say anything about this until we are in possession of all the facts"

The Coroners Act of 1962 and as amended in 2005 provides for a Inquest to be held which is fully Independent. Our Statutory processes should not be criticised and undermined before they have taken place by either bereaved people or indeed our politicians particularly politicians who have served in Government.

A Coroners Inquest can serve a summons to compel witnesses.

AS Coroner is obliged to carry out an Inquest where
Coroners Act, 1962, Section 17

http://www.coroner.ie/en/CS/Pages/Inquests
 

ergo2

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
14,249
I agree with above.

A coroner may also call independent witnesses

A well run inquest may establish a lot here, without the delay and expense of some of the other forms of enquiry mentioned.
 

potholedogger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
1,238
I agree with above.

A coroner may also call independent witnesses

A well run inquest may establish a lot here, without the delay and expense of some of the other forms of enquiry mentioned.
How much would a Barrister Fattening Enquiry cost? There are thousands of people whose medical outcomes could be improved with what would be spent on another Barrister Fattening Tribunal.
 

Dame_Enda

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 14, 2011
Messages
52,051
I agree with an inquest. We need to stop politicising a tragedy. I suspect the Labour Party will oppose this as it risks undermining their arguments for abortion-on-demand if the cause of death is not found to be related to the absence of a termination. We only have Praveen's word for it that she even asked for an abortion. The medical records say no such thing.

The last thing we need is another 10-20 yr Tribunal based on 1920's British govt legislation that runs on for years and makes millionaires out of the legal-profession. :roll: Sometimes the grieving are the worst people to give advice in situations like this. Reason must govern natural sympathy with victims's family. The wider interest of Irish mothers and children have to come first in deciding how to move forward. I do not believe the Irish people want to move to UK-style abortion-on-demand. It was reported in the media yesterday or today that just 15% of Irish women had sought out information on receiving an abortion.
 
Last edited:

dancl2000

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
517
I agree, i'm sympathetic to the family and the situation shows the negligence of govts since the X case

however, that sympathy for the family doesnt mean the family are in the best position to judge how Ireland as a community, including Praveen, should address the clincial and legal issues brought into the spotlight by this tragedy.

Similarly, Michael Martin looking for political points, at the minimum such comments should be accompanied by an admission that his party's inaction over an extended period helped cause the tragedy.

establishing the facts is the right thing to do in the first instance. i dont see a basis to believe that the steps already taken cannot succeed to establish the facts.

based on the outcomes of these investigations we can make a as to further investigations by different bodies.
 

DaveMc

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2009
Messages
860
I agree with above.

A coroner may also call independent witnesses

A well run inquest may establish a lot here, without the delay and expense of some of the other forms of enquiry mentioned.
Agreed.
Im still trying to figure why the husband sought medical records from HSE and wanted all other copies destroyed.

Agents of the State should be allowed to carry out their duties without interference from gombeen opposition leaders, OR an Ambassador from a despot regime where millions starve in streets with open sewers while they spend millions on a space programme.
 

gerhard dengler

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
47,554
The rush to rubbish any of the initiatives by the agents of the State to investigate the Savita Tragedy is getting out of hand.

Praveen should cooperate with every effort by the agents of the State if there is even the slightest prospect that doing so might save a single life.

Michael Martin has plunged in to undermine the efforts of the agents of the State in investigating the Tragedy, calling for an Independent Enquiry, with foreign experts from outside the country to establish the full circumstances.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny, wisely stated that "I don't think we should say anything about this until we are in possession of all the facts"

The Coroners Act of 1962 and as amended in 2005 provides for a Inquest to be held which is fully Independent. Our Statutory processes should not be criticised and undermined before they have taken place by either bereaved people or indeed our politicians particularly politicians who have served in Government.

A Coroners Inquest can serve a summons to compel witnesses.

AS Coroner is obliged to carry out an Inquest where
Coroners Act, 1962, Section 17

Coroner Service: Inquests
The dead woman's husband is either playing or is being played.
 

Dal gCais

Active member
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
200
Nowhere did the husband say that he would not cooperate with the Coroner as far as I am aware. What he did have issue, rightly, with is the HSE performing an inquiry behind closed doors into the HSE. Ridiculous rubbish. The above OP is an affront to the man and a clear attempt to attack him personally that the OP should be ashamed of. The fact that the OP feels the need to bring a politician into gives away the fact that while he decries people trying to politicize this tragedy, he's a hypocrite for doing the same. I have no faith in HSE internal inquiries, especially with the way the Health Service has been deteriorating at an alarming rate. It was bad under the last shower and is only getting worse with Bottler in charge. Trying to brush screw-ups under the table behind closed doors is only going to cause further avoidable deaths down the road!

Further, the Act doesn't apply as the case of death is already known and well documented. It was septicemia. A coroner is not in a statutory position to speculate as to whether other courses of action would have saved her life or not and that is the crux of the debate. I find this whole thread a bit dis-tasteful I must admit.
 

fizzgig

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
363
I find it interesting that nearly everyone mentioned in the post is given a title or at least the courtesy of a surname, except Mr. Praveen Halappanavar who is identified only by his first name.
 

carruthers

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
4,197
I find it interesting that nearly everyone mentioned in the post is given a title or at least the courtesy of a surname, except Mr. Praveen Halappanavar who is identified only by his first name.
I think you are reading something in to it that isn't there, to be fair.
 

potholedogger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
1,238
Nowhere did the husband say that he would not cooperate with the Coroner as far as I am aware. What he did have issue, rightly, with is the HSE performing an inquiry behind closed doors into the HSE. Ridiculous rubbish. The above OP is an affront to the man and a clear attempt to attack him personally that the OP should be ashamed of. The fact that the OP feels the need to bring a politician into gives away the fact that while he decries people trying to politicize this tragedy, he's a hypocrite for doing the same. I have no faith in HSE internal inquiries, especially with the way the Health Service has been deteriorating at an alarming rate. It was bad under the last shower and is only getting worse with Bottler in charge. Trying to brush screw-ups under the table behind closed doors is only going to cause further avoidable deaths down the road!

Further, the Act doesn't apply as the case of death is already known and well documented. It was septicemia. A coroner is not in a statutory position to speculate as to whether other courses of action would have saved her life or not and that is the crux of the debate. I find this whole thread a bit dis-tasteful I must admit.
There is no way a Coroner could avoid having an Inquest on the Death of Savita having regard to the 1962 Act! The Coroner has not in any way indicated that there will not be an Inquest.

The Coroner should not be undermined.
 

Dal gCais

Active member
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
200
There is no way a Coroner could avoid having an Inquest on the Death of Savita having regard to the 1962 Act! The Coroner has not in any way indicated that there will not be an Inquest.

The Coroner should not be undermined.
Who has undermined the coroner. The HSE inquiry as slapped together and applauded by Bottler and Kenny is not the coroner. Both the people you are telling off responded to the utter SHAMBLES that the HSE put together. If you are going to have an inquiry it should be independent and it should be public. I think the past month has proven that the matter is one of public interest beyond doubt. The only people that are trying to shut this down are FG fan-boys who are deathly afraid of being made look like fools after the way they have carried on since this story broke.
 

potholedogger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
1,238
Who has undermined the coroner. The HSE inquiry as slapped together and applauded by Bottler and Kenny is not the coroner. Both the people you are telling off responded to the utter SHAMBLES that the HSE put together. If you are going to have an inquiry it should be independent and it should be public. I think the past month has proven that the matter is one of public interest beyond doubt. The only people that are trying to shut this down are FG fan-boys who are deathly afraid of being made look like fools after the way they have carried on since this story broke.


Are you suggesting the HSE should not hold an internal Inquiry?
 

Dal gCais

Active member
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
200
Are you suggesting the HSE should not hold an internal Inquiry?
The one thing we have proven time and again in the state is that self-regulation is no regulation. From politicians, to lawyers, to the medical council. No organization's investigation of themselves should be taken as gospel. The whole point of the debate is, are the HSE's guidelines and procedures up to scratch. A HSE inquiry will only rule on whether their guidelines and procedures were followed. If they want their own internal inquiry on that, off with them however we need in this case, especially given the potential knock on's to the wider debate going on in the country, is to whether the procedure is in line with best practice and whether a termination would have saved her life. We do need to establish the facts of the case and a HSE carpet sweeping exercise is not going to achieve that!
 

potholedogger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
1,238
Nowhere did the husband say that he would not cooperate with the Coroner as far as I am aware. What he did have issue, rightly, with is the HSE performing an inquiry behind closed doors into the HSE. Ridiculous rubbish. The above OP is an affront to the man and a clear attempt to attack him personally that the OP should be ashamed of. The fact that the OP feels the need to bring a politician into gives away the fact that while he decries people trying to politicize this tragedy, he's a hypocrite for doing the same. I have no faith in HSE internal inquiries, especially with the way the Health Service has been deteriorating at an alarming rate. It was bad under the last shower and is only getting worse with Bottler in charge. Trying to brush screw-ups under the table behind closed doors is only going to cause further avoidable deaths down the road!

Further, the Act doesn't apply as the case of death is already known and well documented. It was septicemia. A coroner is not in a statutory position to speculate as to whether other courses of action would have saved her life or not and that is the crux of the debate. I find this whole thread a bit dis-tasteful I must admit.

Rules

Certain deaths must be reported to the Coroner. These deaths include the following:

Deaths occurring at home or other place of residence:
•Where the deceased was not attended by a doctor during the last illness;
•Where the deceased was not seen and treated by a doctor within one month prior to the date of death;
•Where the death was sudden and unexpected;
•Where the death may have resulted from an accident, suicide or homicide;
•Where the cause of death is unknown or uncertain.

Deaths occurring in hospitals:
•Where the death may have resulted from an accident, suicide or homicide;
•Where any question of negligence or misadventure arises in relation to the treatment of the deceased;
•Where a patient dies before a diagnosis is made and the general practitioner is also unable to certify the cause;
•When the death occurred whilst a patient was undergoing an operation or was under the effect of an anaesthetic;
•Where the death occurred during or as a result of any invasive procedure;
•Where the death resulted from any industrial disease;
•Where a death was due to neglect or lack of care (including self neglect);
•Where the death occurred in a mental hospital.

Deaths reported to the Coroner by an officer of An Garda Síochána (Irish police force):
•Where a death may have resulted from an accident, suicide or homicide;
•Where a death occurred in suspicious circumstances;
•Where there is an unexpected or unexplained death;
•Where a dead body is found;
•Where there is no doctor who can certify the cause of death.

Deaths reported to the Coroner by the Governor of a Prison in Ireland:
•Immediately following the death of a prisoner.

Other categories of death reportable include:
•Sudden infant deaths;
•Certain stillbirths;
•The death of a child in care;
•Where a body is to be removed abroad.



There is no prospect of avoiding a Coroners Inquest in this case!
 

Dal gCais

Active member
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
200
Rules

Certain deaths must be reported to the Coroner. These deaths include the following:

Deaths occurring at home or other place of residence:
•Where the deceased was not attended by a doctor during the last illness;
•Where the deceased was not seen and treated by a doctor within one month prior to the date of death;
•Where the death was sudden and unexpected;
•Where the death may have resulted from an accident, suicide or homicide;
•Where the cause of death is unknown or uncertain.

Deaths occurring in hospitals:
•Where the death may have resulted from an accident, suicide or homicide;
•Where any question of negligence or misadventure arises in relation to the treatment of the deceased;
•Where a patient dies before a diagnosis is made and the general practitioner is also unable to certify the cause;
•When the death occurred whilst a patient was undergoing an operation or was under the effect of an anaesthetic;
•Where the death occurred during or as a result of any invasive procedure;
•Where the death resulted from any industrial disease;
•Where a death was due to neglect or lack of care (including self neglect);
•Where the death occurred in a mental hospital.

Deaths reported to the Coroner by an officer of An Garda Síochána (Irish police force):
•Where a death may have resulted from an accident, suicide or homicide;
•Where a death occurred in suspicious circumstances;
•Where there is an unexpected or unexplained death;
•Where a dead body is found;
•Where there is no doctor who can certify the cause of death.

Deaths reported to the Coroner by the Governor of a Prison in Ireland:
•Immediately following the death of a prisoner.

Other categories of death reportable include:
•Sudden infant deaths;
•Certain stillbirths;
•The death of a child in care;
•Where a body is to be removed abroad.



There is no prospect of avoiding a Coroners Inquest in this case!
Then why did the HSE, backed by Government establish the joke of a HSE led inquiry as the solution to the questions? Are you insinuating more Government bumbling on this issue?
 

potholedogger

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
1,238
Then why did the HSE, backed by Government establish the joke of a HSE led inquiry as the solution to the questions? Are you insinuating more Government bumbling on this issue?
The HSE needed its own review of the incident. The fact that the HSE are holding an inquiry means the Coroner is Bound to hold an Inquest.
 
Last edited:

Dal gCais

Active member
Joined
Feb 4, 2011
Messages
200
The HSE needed its own revied of the incident. The fact that the HSE are holding an inquiry means the Coroner is Bound to hold an Inquest.
Yes, where the Coroner will be bound to report using current HSE guideline and procedures as "the way medical care should be administered". I take it you haven't been involved with a Coroner's Court before. The Coroner cannot over-write HSE guidelines in the same way that it cannot over-write the law. What we need to know is if the guidelines and procedures are at fault.
 

Ryan Tubbs

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 20, 2012
Messages
3,660
Agree 100% with the above. What galls me is that no politician can say this, because the baying media will accuse them of being heartless etc. just because they're not bending over for Praveen and his solicitor
 
Top