Archive for nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Nglreturns is a forum to discuss religion, philosophy, ethics etc...

NGLReturns Daily Quiz - Play here!
 



       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Shaker

Why religion is a cancer on humankind

Part 42,396,338 of an ongoing series:

Quote:
'This is a Catholic country': Woman dies of septicaemia after being refused an abortion in Irish hospital

The death in Ireland of a woman whose repeated requests for an abortion were turned down - reportedly because “this is a Catholic country” - has sparked international protests and condemnation.

In Dublin more than a thousand people staged a demonstration outside the Irish parliament amid calls for an independent inquiry into the death.

Savita Halappanavar, a dentist of Indian origin, died in a hospital in Galway city last month from complications when a termination of her pregnancy was delayed after she had been miscarrying for several days. She was 27.

In a series of poignant radio interviews her husband Praveen said he had no doubt his wife Savita would still be alive if the procedure had been carried out earlier, as she had requested.

The case has drawn attention in the starkest and most tragic way to the state of Ireland's abortion laws, which have a notorious lack of clarity. Particularly tight restrictions on abortion lead thousands of Irishwomen to travel to Britain each year for terminations.

But attempts over decades to liberalise the law, or to clarify it, have not been successful.

The government, which has been considering changes to the laws, has said two internal investigations are being held into the death of Mrs Halappanavar. But it is resisting calls for an independent inquiry.

Speaking from India, Mr Halappanavar said he and his wife had been on top of the world to be expecting a baby, but she had gone to Galway University hospital with back pains. She was found to be miscarrying and was admitted to hospital.

She asked for a termination because she was in agony, but this was refused.

He went on: “A doctor said it was the law - that this is a Catholic country. Savita said, `I am neither Irish not Catholic' but they said there was nothing they could do.”

He said the doctor said that the baby would not survive, but that as long as there was a foetal heartbeat “there was nothing they could do.” Three days followed, he added, in which the heartbeak was checked several times a day.

His wife's condition deteriorated until, he said: “The nurse came running. She just told me to be brave and she took me near Savita and said, `Will you be OK to be there during her last few minutes?' I said yes.

“It was all in their hands and they just let her go. How can you let a young woman go to save a baby who will die anyway? Savita could have had more babies.

“What is the use in being angry? I've lost her. I am talking about this because it shouldn't happen to anyone else. It has been very hard to understand how this can happen in the 21st century.”

The cause of her death was given as septicaemia and e-coli.

A left-wing member of the Irish parliament, Clare Daly, declared: “A woman has died because Galway University Hospital refused to perform an abortion needed to prevent serious risk to her life.

“This is a situation we were told would never arise. An unviable foetus was given priority over the woman's life, who unfortunately and predictably developed septicaemia and died.”

Health minister Dr James Reilly told the Dublin parliament: “If it becomes apparent - and I can't say with any certainty one way or the other although I doubt it - that there was any hesitation here because of moral or religious beliefs, then that would be an extremely serious matter.”

Socialist member Joe Higgins said it was “a monstrous and medieval position in the Ireland of the 21st century.”

Twenty years ago a controversial case in which a fourteen-year-old schoolgirl, a pregnant and suicidal rape victim, was permitted to travel to Britain for a termination.

This represented a relaxation in the actual position on abortion, but since then six successive governments have veered away from attempting to enact legislation to give legal effect to this.

The authorities have lately however come under pressure from Europe to clarify what exactly the legal position is, especially since the European Court of Human Rights handed down a ruling critical of the existing confusion.

The government is due to report to Europe shortly what progress it has made. The current tragic case will propel the issue to the top of the political agenda.


Source

Jerry Coyne (or rather his guest contributor) is also typically excellent.

I give it a few posts before the usual suspects step forward to tell us all how this has nothing, absolutely nothing at all, goodness me no, to do with religion and its mania for imposing its dogmas on those who don't share them.
Ketty

It's everything to do with religion and nothing to do with Christ Jesus.  

My heart goes out to the family.
cyberman

If it is true that she died after being refused an abortion, is it also true that she died because of being refused an abortion?

I can see no medical reason to believe that, had an abortion been performed, she would have lived. Can you?
Ketty

The poor woman was having a spontaneous abortion anyway!  The baby had already died.  She was in the agony of labour and the only reason she cried out to them to surgically abort was because of her pain (physical and emotional).
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
If it is true that she died after being refused an abortion, is it also true that she died because of being refused an abortion?

I can see no medical reason to believe that, had an abortion been performed, she would have lived. Can you?

Do you not believe that had she had an abortion, her chances of full recovery would have been vastly increased?
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
If it is true that she died after being refused an abortion, is it also true that she died because of being refused an abortion?

I can see no medical reason to believe that, had an abortion been performed, she would have lived. Can you?

Do you not believe that had she had an abortion, her chances of full recovery would have been vastly increased?


No I don't. Why are you shying away from answering my question?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
If it is true that she died after being refused an abortion, is it also true that she died because of being refused an abortion?

As far as I am able to judge, yes, that is the case.

Quote:
I can see no medical reason to believe that, had an abortion been performed, she would have lived. Can you?

Yes.

There you go - your questions answered. Now one of mine - why don't you believe that if she had had the abortion she needed, her chances of recovery would have been vastly increased?
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
If it is true that she died after being refused an abortion, is it also true that she died because of being refused an abortion?

As far as I am able to judge, yes, that is the case.

Quote:
I can see no medical reason to believe that, had an abortion been performed, she would have lived. Can you?

Yes.

There you go - your questions answered. Now one of mine - why don't you believe that if she had had the abortion she needed, her chances of recovery would have been vastly increased?


When she presented she was already in labour, the miscarriage underway. Artificially inducing labour would not have changed anything. Adding the trauma of invasive surgery to remove the foetus non-vaginally would only have worsened the risk of infection. In the event, it was an infection (sepsis) of which she died, some time later.

Please explain exactly how an abortion would have helped, rather than repeatedly asserting that it would.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
When she presented she was already in labour, the miscarriage underway. Artificially inducing labour would not have changed anything.


Nothing to do with inducing labour. One of the reports that I read - I don't know if it's in one of the links I provided in the OP, but if not I'm sure it can be easily found - indicates that Mrs Halappanavar was due for abortion by evacuation.

EDIT: It was in the second of the links I posted earlier.

Quote:
Adding the trauma of invasive surgery to remove the foetus non-vaginally would only have worsened the risk of infection.


It would have been vaginally. The procedure is described in detail here. Mrs Halappanavar was already suffering from an infection because a dead foetus was left inside her.

Quote:
Please explain exactly how an abortion would have helped, rather than repeatedly asserting that it would.

Because the procedure would have removed a dead and therefore soon or even already decomposing foetus inside her uterus. I have it on the word of Dr. Kimberly Gecsi, an obstetrician at University Hospitals in Cleveland

Quote:
... [who said that] the only way to treat it is to terminate the pregnancy.

"Antibiotics are part of the process, but once an infection develops inside the uterus, antibiotics alone aren't going to treat the infection," Gecsi said. "The infection will continue until the products of pregnancy are removed, either by natural procedure or with surgical procedure."


I'm going with the medical expertise of a specialist in the relevant field. You?
cyberman

And the fetal matter was already in the process of removing itself, wasn't it? So what difference would abortion have made. Did the infection occur during the time that the matter was still there? Did decomposition occur during labour?
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
And the fetal matter was already in the process of removing itself, wasn't it?


Was it?

Quote:
So what difference would abortion have made.


It would have removed the foetus more quickly and allowed antibiotic treatment to be more effective. I have already quoted the word of an obstetrician saying that antibiotics alone are not enough: it has to be antibiotics plus evacuation of the uterine contents. Mrs Halappanavar received the former but was denied the latter: in other words she received only half of the treatment she needed which would almost certainly have saved her life. The other half was denied her.

Quote:
Did the infection occur during the time that the matter was still there?

Yes, that's what I've taken from all the reports I've read and especially from the last one to which I provided a link, yes it did. In the words of another specialist:

Quote:
Ms. Halappanavar died of an infection, one that would have been brewing for several days if not longer, [so] the fact that a termination was delayed for any reason is malpractice. Infection must always be suspected whenever, preterm labor, premature rupture of the membranes, or advanced premature cervical dilation occurs (one of the scenarios that would have brought Ms. Halappanavar to the hospital).
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
And the fetal matter was already in the process of removing itself, wasn't it?


Was it?


Yes - that is what labour means. That is why she presented in the first place.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
And the fetal matter was already in the process of removing itself, wasn't it?


Was it?


Yes - that is what labour means. That is why she presented in the first place.


Were it always the case that labour entails the appearance of a foetus or a baby (depending on stage of pregnancy), there would never be any need for induced births, would there?
Farmer Geddon

Ketty wrote:
It's everything to do with religion and nothing to do with Christ Jesus.  

My heart goes out to the family.


Weird..

So are you trying to say "religion" is bad, but personal development is good?

If the religion of "christ jesus" hadn't run amok during the Roman occupation of Europe after the Constantine Conspiracy and pushed by the "Roman" Catholics, (καθολικός (katholikos) meaning "universal",) we would not be having this back and forth about "christ jesus" if the fecking religion was "Universal".

More likely we would be laughing at the "Mithra;  the Light of the World, who is an ancient sun god identified with Sol Invictus, who was born on December 25th" bullshit...    

You do know what a religion/Religion is I hope, compared to a "Cult/cult"?
bnabernard

Don't the indians religion have something to do with accepting Fate?

bernard (hug)
Lexilogio

This incident needs to be properly investigated. One key question is whether the law on abortion in Ireland would have allowed this, or not. As I understand it, the law isn't a blanket ban.
Shaker

Farmer Geddon wrote:


If the religion of "christ jesus" hadn't run amok during the Roman occupation of Europe after the Constantine Conspiracy and pushed by the "Roman" Catholics, (καθολικός (katholikos) meaning "universal",) we would not be having this back and forth about "christ jesus" if the fecking religion was "Universal".

More likely we would be laughing at the "Mithra;  the Light of the World, who is an ancient sun god identified with Sol Invictus, who was born on December 25th" bullshit...

Correction: most of us would be laughing at that particular brand of bullshit; some people would be in their temples and whatnot practising it.
cyberman

Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
Shaker wrote:
cyberman wrote:
And the fetal matter was already in the process of removing itself, wasn't it?


Was it?


Yes - that is what labour means. That is why she presented in the first place.


Were it always the case that labour entails the appearance of a foetus or a baby (depending on stage of pregnancy), there would never be any need for induced births, would there?


Yes - you induce when the woman is not going into labour. Labour is what you induce.
Shaker

cyberman wrote:
Yes - you induce when the woman is not going into labour. Labour is what you induce.

And even then the appearance of a foetus/baby naturally (i.e. non-surgically) is not by any means guaranteed. For a multitude of reasons surgical intervention (i.e. a C section) may well be indicated.

In any case, much as this entirely pointless and irrelevant diversion on matters obstetric has gratified you, I'm sure, it does not alter the fact that this lady should have received an abortion earlier, which would almost certainly have saved her life. By being denied the complete range of treatment at the earliest possible stage (aggressive antibiotic treatment coupled with uterine evacuation, not the first instead of the second - which is what actually happened - or the second instead of the first), immediately upon arrival at the hospital, without having to wait for the foetus's heartbeat to stop, she was allowed to die.
Ketty

Farmer Geddon wrote:


So are you trying to say "religion" is bad, but personal development is good?


No, that's not what I said.  'Personal development'?  Where did that come from?  Is that part of a religious mindset?  

Farmer Geddon wrote:
You do know what a religion/Religion is I hope, compared to a "Cult/cult"?


Yes, I do.

Some cults are religious too.

But that's off topic, and doesn't take away from the fact it's a dreadful thing to have happened, but what's happened has everything to do with men, some religious and some maybe not, and nothing to do with Christ Jesus, and it would appear, nothing to do with the welfare of the victim, Mrs Halappanavar.

       nglreturns.myfreeforum.org Forum Index -> All faiths and none
Page 1 of 1
Create your own free forum | Buy a domain to use with your forum