Skip to main content

View Diary: Would an abortion have saved Savita Halappanavar? (72 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And your "more innocent scenario" is what? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pandoras Box

    You write:

    But there is also an altogether more innocent explanation of what happened in this particular instance of which we should be aware before we jump to conclusions and condemn all involved. I have spoken to medical personnel with some knowledge of the hospital and staff in question (but with no direct knowledge of this particular case) who point out the possibility of a very different scenario:
    You follow that paragraph with:
    1.  She was miscarrying
    2.  standard procedure is to allow that to happen without intervention (which is what happened)
    3.  or maybe she could have been induced to deliver sooner. (this did not happen)
    4.  She may have gotten the infection from being at the hospital, and may have lived if she had stayed home.

    I still don't get what the "more innocent scenario" is that your "medical personnel with some knowledge..." are suggesting.

    I would like to "point out the possibility" that this is a poorly written diary.

    •  Mistakes of this magnitude are not made innocently (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pandoras Box, Mrs M

      They are the result of gross incompetence, gross negligence, malicious indifference, religious insanity or ALL OF THE ABOVE.

      If it's
      Not your body,
      Then it's
      Not your choice
      And it's
      None of your damn business!

      by TheOtherMaven on Wed Nov 21, 2012 at 07:25:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The more innocent scenario is one (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      which does not involve:

      There have been allegations of Roman Catholic dogma determining the medical treatments  available to non-Catholics in Irish hospitals; allegations of racism; and allegations of a patriarchal medical system and culture that would rather have a woman suffer in acute pain rather than give her appropriate treatment and relief.
      and where the medical team took the view that an abortion in this particular case would not reduce her risks of infection or that an abortion carried as many risks as benefits.  That raises two issues:

      1.  Were the medical team correct in their assessment based on the available evidence -  e.g. no evidence of infection at that time, and the very low incidence of septicemia following miscarriage in Ireland? Doctors aren't infallible, mistakes happen,  and even very low risks materialize in a very few cases.  So the question here is a straightforward medical practice one - was she properly diagnosed, monitored and treated based on the available evidence, did the medical team make a good faith mistake, were they negligent in some way, or was this a case of medical malpractice requiring, at the very least, a disciplinary response if not a criminal prosecution. It is just about possible that this is one of the rare occasions where a patient dies even though proper medical protocols were adhered to. Unlikely, but still possible, in my view, depending on what the inquiry finds.

      2. But why then was she apparently told she couldn't have an abortion because "this is a Catholic country" and not that the team's medical judgement that an abortion carried as many risks as benefits? It is possible that she WAS told that an abortion carried as many risks as benefits and that the team was therefor not going to carry one out. It is possible that she then she decided that she wanted an abortion anyway, and that she was THEN told that abortion of demand is not possible because "this is a Catholic country".

      My point is that we have only heard her husband's allegations, but have heard no testimony for the medical team themselves. We haven't even seen the medical records. So it is to prejudge the issue to make firm assertions at this stage.  The medical team, too, are entitled to a presumption of innocence until the facts are fully investigated. My concern is that a rush to judgement which turns out to be wrong could be damaging to the pro-choice movement. Hell, any rush to judgment in the absence of all the evidence being heard is damaging to the credibility of any community which claims to be reality based and which claims to respect due process.

      Some here have accused me here of being a concern troll.  I am most certainly concerned that all the evidence is heard before judgement is made.  I consider the reputation of Daily Kos being at greater risk because of some of the prejudicial, ill-informed and intemperate commentary here.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site