Irony alert »« [Lounge #381]

It’s time to abort the Catholic Church

Bloody butchers and pious toads who mask their medieval ignorance with a pretense of charity and care; it’s long past time to end the illusion and recognize the barbarism of the church. Shut ‘em down.

The latest victim in over a millennium of Catholic abuse is Savita Halappanavar, a young woman who was 17 weeks pregnant when her condition began to deteriorate. She went to a Catholic hospital, a fatal mistake.

…she was miscarrying, and after one day in severe pain, Ms Halappanavar asked for a medical termination.

This was refused, he says, because the foetal heartbeat was still present and they were told, “this is a Catholic country”.

She spent a further 2½ days “in agony” until the foetal heartbeat stopped.

She was clearly miscarrying, she was fully dilated and leaking amniotic fluid, and it was obvious to all, including the doctors at the hospital, that this pregnancy was doomed — there was no hope for the fetus at all. Yet they refused to do the one simple, ethical procedure that would have saved Halappanavar’s life.

Because of a simple-minded, naive, stupid attachment to the magical power of twitching cardiac muscle fibers. Because dogma and superstition stayed their hands.

Because it was a fucking Catholic hospital in a Catholic country.

Because doctors had been indoctrinated since childhood in lies that were shown to be false during their medical training, but which they could not overcome; because hospital administrators put their faith above their obligation to serve patients; because lawmakers in that country shied away from learning how their policies killed women; because a mob of celibate old puppetmasters don’t give a damn about anything other than their theology and will happily sacrifice human beings on the altar of their vile and backward religion.

The end result: a septicemic infection swept through the gaping wound of Halappanavar’s cervix, killing her, after days of agony. The pope and his bishops, and the faithful Catholics in that hospital, killed her as surely as if they’d taken a scalpel to her throat — which would have been a more merciful death than the misery they put her through.

Monsters, every one of them.

Seriously, shut them down. There is no acceptable reason that any hospital in any country should be shackled by the antiquated beliefs of Catholicism. Catholics should no more be permitted to manage hospitals than Jehovah’s Witnesses are permitted to regulate blood transfusions. We are talking about simple, routine procedures that could save lives that are disallowed by a church. What are they doing in the surgery in the first place?

The Catholic bishops have a rationalization.

For those who view life through the lens of their Christian faith, our bodies are sacred; temples of the Holy Spirit, created in the image of God and redeemed through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. For Christians, our bodies are not our own to do with them what we will. Our bodies come from God, are created in God’s image and destined for eternal life with him in heaven. This is our faith and this is what distinguishes us from those who do not share our faith.

Jebus, what blithering tripe, what pious inanities. This is only the latest atrocity. Fuck the Catholic church. Empty every pew, loot every coffer, disband every level of the hierarchy, take all their property and turn it over to secular authorities to be managed ethically and rationally.

And if you’re still attending church…what the hell is wrong with you?

Comments

  1. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Granted, Ing;, that there is a significant difference here between the legal and the ethical.

    And again, the point is missed. Even within the law, the live of Savita could have been saved. The doctors knew that septicemia was already there before the fetus was dead. They could have asked the hospital’s lawyer for advise on the limits of the law.

    Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

  2. John Morales says

    nolajim:

    But in so doing, they would have violated Irish law, and risked imprisonment.

    Perhaps.

    But also doubtless in so doing, they would have violated Irish Canon Law, and risked anathema.

    (You don’t dispute this, but you keep ignoring it)

  3. nolajim says

    Thank you Ing:, I did mistype the colon that I was treating as part of your handle as a semicolon.

  4. consciousness razor says

    Ideally, the doctors SHOULD have ignored the law. And I do feel the law is unjust, and the justice is more important than law. But I would not presume to criticize a doctor with a life and a practice and a family, who opted to avoid the very real risk of being put in jail for the rest of his life.

    Translation: they should and shouldn’t do it.

    That’s really helpful.

  5. nolajim says

    I thought I was clearer than that, Consciousness Razor. Yes, they SHOULD have. No, neither you nor I is in a position to criticize their failure to do what they should have done, given the real-word situation they found themselves in.

  6. says

    But in so doing, they would have violated Irish law, and risked imprisonment. It is not fair to heap blame for them under the legal circumstances.

    Let’s see…risk going to prison…watch a woman die. Risk going to prison…watch a woman die. Risk going to prison…

    Yeah, a real dilemma, that. Such moral ambiguity. Wow, such a big gray area. Gosh, I’d really be torn deciding what the right thing to do would be.

  7. says

    I thought I was clearer than that, Consciousness Razor. Yes, they SHOULD have. No, neither you nor I is in a position to criticize their failure to do what they should have done, given the real-word situation they found themselves in.

    Yes they should have but I have no place saying what they should or shouldn’t do.

    The only time anyone should say something so blatantly stupid is if they’re Kirk and trying to kill a computer.

  8. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    No, neither you nor I is in a position to criticize their failure to do what they should have done, given the real-word situation they found themselves in.

    You are mistaken. And this has been pointed out to you repeatedly.

  9. nolajim says

    Janin: I don’t know whether or not a lawyer was consulted. *IF* there was signficant legal ambiguity, I agree they should have. But as best as I can understand the situation, there was very little ambiguity.

  10. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    feralboy12:
    especially since there’s no guarantee they would be going to jail for life. Y’know because if the woman’s life is in danger, abortion is permitted. And we know that Savita’s life was in danger. From septicemia. Before the fetus died.

  11. nolajim says

    Janine: OK, fine. Criticize the doctors. Tell them they should have ignored the law, aborted the fetus, and gone to jail. I choose not to do that.

  12. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    nolajim:

    But as best as I can understand the situation

    Oh.
    Just.
    Stop.
    You don’t understand the situation.
    You’ve been corrected by multiple people several times.
    You don’t display the ability to read for shit.
    Lurk more. Type less. Brush up on comprehension skills and empathy.

  13. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    The septicemia was already in place before the fetus was dead. What ambiguity was there?

    The medical staff failed that woman.

    How difficult would it have been for at least one doctor to consult a lawyer about this.

    And again, nolajim whiffs.

  14. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    nolajim “he of the bankrupt moral compass”:

    Tell them they should have ignored the law, aborted the fetus, and gone to jail.

    They should have save Savita’s life. Period. Fuck the damn fetus. It was going to die anyway.
    End of story.
    You’re the one making fucking excuses in the wake of this horrible tragedy.

  15. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Janine: OK, fine. Criticize the doctors. Tell them they should have ignored the law, aborted the fetus, and gone to jail. I choose not to do that.

    And to think that you have been whining about Ing misrepresenting your words.

    You are an assclam.

  16. FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker) says

    Sorry nolajim, I missed your call for clarification on my question. The reason I asked if Irish doctors were exempt from your call for political activism was to point out a minor instance of hypocrisy on your part. You chide us for an imagined lack of real world political activism and give the Irish doctors a pass because they faced legal censure.

    Apparently activism in nolajim’s world is only suppose to take place when there’s no chance of legal consequences.

  17. nolajim says

    John Morales @#2: You’re right, I don’t deny that the doctors would have been violating cannon law by performing the abortion. And neither one of us is in a position to know if that is what guided the decisions of multiple doctors and hospital administrators. I ignore it because it is unknowable. Do you think Savita would still be dead if the only threat against the doctor performing the abortion were excommunication rather than life in prison?

  18. consciousness razor says

    No, neither you nor I is in a position to criticize their failure to do what they should have done, given the real-word situation they found themselves in.

    I think critically about everything. This has nothing to do with what kind of “position” we put ourselves in.

    But what did you mention about their situation anyway?

    – Is “a doctor”
    – Has “a life”
    – Has “a practice”
    – Has “a family”
    – Could go to prison if they don’t kill a woman

    Except for the last, I don’t see how any of those could be relevant to whether or not they should have done it.

    I don’t know why you’d bother inventing excuses for them out of thin air anyway. Do you need to be this dense? (Maybe you’re an RCC apologist or have some relationship with the hospital/doctors, but for now I’m betting on dense.)

  19. John Morales says

    nolajim @12(+500):

    OK, fine. Criticize the doctors. Tell them they should have ignored the law, aborted the fetus, and gone to jail.

    Care to quantify?

    I.e.: expressed as a percentage, what degree of certitude do you assign to this purported outcome?

    (Tell me you’re not just relying on your oracular expertise, here!)

    PS You’re being told they should have done their medical duty.

    (The which might have saved the victim, or at the very least have prevented preventable agony)

  20. nolajim says

    Way past my bed time, and I’m getting punchy. It has been…..interesting. I might write a paper on group dynamics and in-group out-group identity formation. A+ to the group for raw ability at argument. D- for (in)ability to look up available facts and to react to what a poster has actually written as opposed to what another poster has misquote or misparaphrased.

  21. FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker) says

    Repeating this because I believe it has yet to be answered:

    From Icthyc’s link

    As Ms. Halappanavar died of an infection, one that would have been brewing for several days if not longer…

    From nolajim

    septicemia was not present when she checked into the hospital and was not diagnosed until after the fetus had died.

    nolajim again

    Icthyc at #461: I agree with the analysis in the link you provided.

    Are you now saying that you do believe that septicemia was in fact present before the fetus died?

  22. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    … and to react to what a poster has actually written as opposed to what another poster has misquote or misparaphrased.

    Just one last question, assclam. You said this.

    Janine: OK, fine. Criticize the doctors. Tell them they should have ignored the law, aborted the fetus, and gone to jail. I choose not to do that.

    At what point did I say the doctors should ignore the law? Especially when she could have been saved under those restrictive laws?

    Stupid assclam.

  23. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    nolajim:

    D- for (in)ability to look up available facts and to react to what a poster has actually written as opposed to what another poster has misquote or misparaphrased.

    Oh fuck off you smug duckshart.
    You’ve been presented with fact after fact which you ignore, in favor of your twisted version of reality.
    You display an inability to read the words on the screen.
    You display an inability to parse the meaning of words on the screen.
    You display a fucked up sense of morality wherein doctors should NOT perform their duty. Rather, they should let a patient die.

    You, my not-so-good-man are the epitome of a fuckwit.

  24. FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker) says

    And there we go, nolajim at #500(22) drags it back full circle to my original point:

    This woman, this person, this thinking, feeling human being had a history. She had a past webbed with connections to other thinking, feeling humans, people whom she loved, people by whom she was loved in turn.

    This woman, this person, this thinking, feeling human had a future. A future rich in all the beautiful, wondrous possibilities that make up a human’s time upon this earth.

    But she wasn’t allowed to walk into that future. Was. Not. Allowed. Instead she was forced to suffer agonies beyond our ability to comprehend as she rotted from within. She dribbled her life away in a flush of pus and gore as those who could have saved her stood by and refused that which could have saved her.

    And you nolajim, you want to play games with the responsibility? Fuck you, you loathsome piece of bilious spume. Fuck you for reducing this horror, this torture death, to a false dichotomy. Blame is not a single indivisible unit, it’s damn near an infinite resource. And right here, right now you can have your share. A great heaping, steaming pile of it for reducing the slow, grinding snuffing out of a thinking, feeling human being’s life into some kind of rhetorical game.

  25. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    How does the Horde grade nolajim’s performance?
    We received an A+ and a D-.
    What say you?

    Me: I need a grade worse than F for him.

  26. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Tony, you are being quite unfair to out upstanding assclam guest. We are upset about this only because of in-group dynamics.

  27. says

    This was not a case of failure to provide proper medical care caused or brought about by legal uncertainty. The law, or at least the court ruling, was in place to enable those doctors to go ahead and remove the fetus. It needed initiative and intent to fuck this up so badly, and Im not accepting incompetence as a good enough motive.

    What I suspect from reading more and more about it, is that the O&G department at Galway may have had a tradition of being run by devout Catholic medical staff, eg the emeritus Prof Dwyer who so likes defending the Christian Brothers, and that this lady simply came to the wrong place.

    I hope this gets looked into thoroughly, and that Dwyer and all his collegues at Galway O&G get assessed for Christian mindrot.

  28. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    Janine:
    you are quite correct.

    I should apologize.::snicker::

  29. chigau (棒や石) says

    Wait.
    Does nolajim thinks we’re all sockpuppets?
    Isn’t that what ‘in-group’ is code for?

  30. John Morales says

    nolajim @19:

    Do you think Savita would still be dead if the only threat against the doctor performing the abortion were excommunication rather than life in prison?

    Irrelevant question, given the fetus was never going to become a neonate; right question is ‘Might Savita not have died had best medical practice been followed’, which further invites the question ‘Upon what is the impediment to best medical practice in Ireland based?’.

    (Was it? What might that be?)

    So — why do you persist in this purported incredulity that people can both oppose the ultimate and the proximate cause of these incidents, and aspire not just to ameliorate, but indeed to eliminate this particular cause?

    (BTW — did even story-Jesus suffer more than this woman (who was not an adherent, BTW) did? I put it to you that it’s arguable.

    (Kinder were the Aztec — they juiced them up and quicly extracted their victims’ hearts (and they never ran an inquisition!))

  31. says

    oh rorschach, why are you being so stubbornly ignorant of medicine? don’t you know that nolajim knows everything better, and therefore you must be wrong?

  32. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    Will he be back? Going to sleep doesn’t count as a flounce, right?
    I’m biting my nails in nervous anticipation.

  33. Ichthyic says

    Janine your mischaracterization and misreading of him is something I have to take responsibility for

    no! I am Spartacus!

  34. says

    mudpuddles

    Wrong again. That symposium was in Dublin, which is on the exact opposite side of the country to Galway, where Savita died.

    As long as it might seem on Irish roads, that’s not really like California and Florida

    That “symposium” was organised and hosted by the Committee for Excellence in Maternal Healthcare, a Catholic anti-choice organisation, whose committee members include several people who have been vociferously anti-abortion. It was not organised or endorsed by the Galway University Hospitals.

    It was organized and run by actual fucking obstetricians who decided to ignore reality in favour of religion. In a small country. Making it look like an actual scientific congress. So, those people who are given high respect in Irish society still are presenting a position that conveniently confirms everything those people have always been told and you think that has no effect?

    When I studied in Ireland, the pro-life propaganda was everywhere. Supported and organized by the RCC. So, those young folks would get to hear that shit every day from people they were taught to listen to and respect. And you think this has no effect?

    nolajim

    When I see that some here seem to think the RCC writes Irish Law, I am trying to call attention to the blame being heaped here on the Church INSTEAD of the state.

    You’re either a liar or you’re too stupid to understand that somebody can influence laws without writing them themselves.

    WORK TO CHANGE THE LAW, and leave the church to find its own way to oblivion

    You’re an idiot if you think you can do the former without actively working towards the latter.

    But stop using your rage as an excuse not to change the world for the better. Fix this problem

    Fucking asshole stop accusing people here of all places of “finding excuses not to do something”.

    I do feel I’ve accomplished a little something here.

    Yes, you’ve convinced everybody that you’re a dishonest asshole.

    . But a few of you here need to see a therapist. Not because your anger is invalid, but because it is directed in impractical directions.

    Fuck you for you ableism, for trying to silence people by claiming they’re mentally ill. And you know what, asshole? Since the enlightenment we constantly advanced secular law by diminishing the influences of religion. What you need, you dimwitted fuckwit is a history book.

    although I have some reservations about a single person’s ability actually to DO both.

    Speak for yourself. In which case I’m surprised you manage to type and breathe simultaneously.

    By “confronting the church” you become a tool of the church, keeping the focus on religious debate, that most people will just walk away from, instead of making this an issue of medicine, law, and politics, which you might actually be able to do something about NOW.

    You’re simply wrong on this and don’t understand that those things are inseperatable.

    Because it seems to demonstrate a peculiar notion of modern Ireland as too much liken the Ireland your (Americans) great-great-grandparents emigrated from

    You’re even more an idiot because many people here are from europe, some from Ireland indeed. Others like me have lived there for some time.

    Yes, I’m calling your activist bluff.

    The only person here who actively opposes doing something is you. Everybody else agrees that we can do (and indeed are already doing) both.

    I have not suggested anyone should “attack” the (or any) government

    So you actually do oppose both ways of activism…

    The doctors hands *were* tied by Irish Law, which prohibits abortion unless the mother’s life is at risk, a condition which did not apply when Savita checked in. The doctors and hospital administrators discussed this for days and reached the only conclusion that Irish law allows.

    Liar, liar, pants on fire. That has been discussed and dismissed already.
    John Morales

    A touch hyperbolic and conflates the institution with its members

    An institution is its members. There’s no magical entity called organisation that acts independently. Sure, not every member is responsible for everything somebody else does, but at this point I’m fucking not willing to let anybody who is still a member of that sick cult off the hook (unless your own life depends on staying a member): If you don’t leave that criminal organisation now you’re saying that it might be kind of bad that children are raped and women left to die in agony, but that they are not as important as your allegiance to the asshole in Rome and and I’m damn going to judge you on that.

  35. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Giliell, I don’t deny that there’s a level of scale at which such a distinction is moot, and a most applicable one it is in reality.

    (I still endorse your comment back there)

  36. Ichthyic says

    I do feel I’ve accomplished a little something here.

    Yes, you’ve convinced everybody that you’re a dishonest asshole.

    +1

    I was willing to toy with the idea that he just was speaking strongly and not hearing what we were telling him.

    Now I’m sure he’s either just a moron or a troll.

  37. Beatrice says

    I really don’t know how people could make it clearer. The woman was in a condition that could only result in her death – that pretty much satisfies the definition of “life threatening”. Therefore, abortion in that case was covered by the law and perfectly legal.

  38. Beatrice says

    And I was unclear here:

    The woman was in a condition that could only result in her death

    if not treated.

  39. Matt Penfold says

    Janine: OK, fine. Criticize the doctors. Tell them they should have ignored the law, aborted the fetus, and gone to jail. I choose not to do that.

    They would not have gone to jail. The Irish courts have ruled that abortions can be carried out to save a women’s life.

    I am not sure if you simply do not understand (quite possible, you come across as being very stupid) or you know you are spouting crap. I’m not sure I either. If you are ignorant, it can now only be through choice.

  40. says

    Why does it need to be the only possible outcome?

    If death is only one of the possible outcomes, it’s still life-threatening.

  41. Beatrice says

    Crissa,

    You are right of course, but nolajim is a bit thick, so putting it into simplest terms is needed. This way he can’t argue that the doctors “didn’t know for sure she would die so they were afraid of breaking the law” or some crap like that.

  42. Beatrice says

    If death is only one of the possible outcomes, it’s still life-threatening.

    Although, you might want to change “one of the possible” into probable, or of significant probability.

    Otherwise, it is a bit too broad.

  43. la tricoteuse says

    Apologies if this has already been given adequate attention and I missed it in the 549 comments so far, but holy shit what is with this harping on “when she checked in” as the root of all decisions governing her care from that point until her death?

    So she (arguably) wasn’t in a life-threatening situation at the time of check in. Conditions fucking deteriorate when left untreated. Checking into a hospital isn’t a goddamn magical time-freezing moment after which nothing changes in the condition of the person who checks in. IF she wasn’t septicemic when she checked in, she sure as fuck was later and her life could have been saved if the doctors had acted accordingly instead of being obsessed with a dying fetus’s heart muscle twitching. It matters not one fucking jot what her condition was at the time of check in if it changed between then and her death.

  44. la tricoteuse says

    Giliell @51

    You just weren’t paying attention when they poofed the baby out of your belly and into an appropriately coloured blanket all clean and shiny. With special hospital voodoo.

  45. rq says

    I feel like I’ve run a marathon, after reading all the comments I missed through the night.
    Applause to those who stayed the (morally correct) course (noooo, sorry, that’s not you, nolajim).

    I hope the doctors involved get everything that they deserve – from malpractice suits, to prison, to general public contempt, to… I don’t know what else. Sadly, the church itself is likely to absolve them, seeing as it was a fetus (innocent life) and a woman (we all know how much the church loves women) who died. And for that very reason the church does not deserve to, and therefore should not, and CAN not, call itself anyone’s moral compass.
    Afterlife?
    What about this life, for Savita…?

  46. rq says

    la tricoteuse @52
    Are you trying to say that’s not how it happens?

    And the point had been made, several times (excuse me if I don’t go back to find specific comments for you, please believe me), but some people had issues with addressing the fact that, yes, situations can deteriorate (predictably and rapidly), even from an initial diagnosis of ‘you’re ok’. So some people chose not to address that fact, and kept on insisting that doctors were somehow forced, by law, to wait until it was too late to do anything.
    Because, if some people would admit that her condition did in fact, change, then their argument would lose whatever kind of ricketty support they thought it still may have had.

  47. la tricoteuse says

    “Some people” appear to have tiny goblins munching on their brainmeats, if I may take a moment to be inappropriately light-hearted in the face of such tragedy and the surrounding toxic bullshit. Sometimes it’s the only alternative to kicking the nearest hard surface until I break my foot, and that doesn’t seem like it will end well for me.

  48. Anri says

    nolajim:

    I’m feeling pretty comfortable about my moral compass, Tony-Queer Duck. Yes, the doctors *should* have terminated the pregnancy right away. Yes, that was the moral and ethical decision. But in so doing, they would have violated Irish law, and risked imprisonment. It is not fair to heap blame for them under the legal circumstances.

    Ok, let’s say we can agree that the doctor’s reluctance was a result of the Irish law*.

    Now, here’s where it gets… well, not exactly hard, since everyone else seems to be doing it just fine, but here’s the next step anyway:

    Where was the law a result of, do you think?

    What was the source for the attitudes resulting in that law?

    What was the organization holding itself up as moral exemplar for the public on this issue?

    What wealthy and powerful worldwide group will fight tooth and nail and claw against any change in the law unless either their stance, or people’s stance towards them, is changed?

    This is neither a difficult or complex question.

    - – -
    *We could assume that their reluctance might have been personal, as well, based on some sort of moral guidance they felt was superior to their understanding of the real-world situation.
    Can you guess where that kind of moral guidance would have come from?
    I bet you can.

  49. rq says

    la tricoteuse

    I think that, without being disrespectful, it’s ok to be a bit lighthearted, because reading through all the comments… wow. The fortitude of some good people, able to keep explaining obvious facts to those other people (the ones with tiny goblins munching on their brainmeats), is impressive, and I (at least) found it heavy (also educational – debating skills, fact presentation and focus on-topic) reading. I’m ok with a small bit of levity, at the expense of those whose arguments are constantly lacking.
    Save your foot for other things.

  50. dianne says

    Tell them they should have ignored the law, aborted the fetus, and gone to jail.

    Ok. They should have ignored the law or interpreted it in a way that best suited them, aborted the fetus as soon as it was clear that they were facing an incomplete spontaneous abortion and there had been prolonged rupture of membranes, and risked going to jail.

    Consider an analogy: What would you think of a surgeon who refused to operate on patients with HIV because they MIGHT get a needlestick and get HIV from said stick? They need to go into a different field, don’t they? Because they’re not putting their patients first. Similarly, a doctor who is not willing to take a very arguable legal risk to save his or her patient from dying of sepsis after incomplete spontaneous abortion needs to get out of the field of obstetrics. He or she is not competent to practice it.

  51. dianne says

    If death is only one of the possible outcomes, it’s still life-threatening.

    That’s one of the problems with the “mother’s life” exception to abortion restrictions: Every pregnancy is life threatening. Fun fact: it’s more dangerous to try to complete a pregnancy in the US than to fly on 11 September, 2001. So you start playing games with statistics. Is a woman who has about a 50% chance of dying during pregnancy eligible for an abortion? What about one with a 90% chance–refuse ten times and you will probably have one example of a “the doctors were wrong and the baby and I are fine” story, along with your 9 adult and 9 fetal corpses. Why not just acknowledge that pregnancy is life threatening-always-and allow the patient to decide whether she wants to take the risk or not?

  52. dianne says

    What I did say is that in this particular instance (Savita’s death), septicemia was not present when she checked into the hospital and was not diagnosed until after the fetus had died.

    Um. No. Just no. She was reported to have had shaking chills, nausea, vomiting, and collapse before the fetus was removed. She was put on antibiotics for the (clearly already known) infection at least half a day before the fetus’ heart finally stopped beating. If they didn’t know she was septic they were grossly incompetent. Now, it is clear that they were grossly incompetent, but this is the sort of thing that a third year medical student wouldn’t miss. Source of infection, shaking chills, probable changes in vital signs—that’s SEPSIS until proven otherwise. And throwing on a few antibiotics without removal of the source AND ICU care is overt malpractice.

  53. says

    That’s it. I can’t fucking take it anymore. I just cannot. This situation is absolutely awful, and reading certain comments here absolutely hasn’t made the situation any better.

    I cannot believe that I live in a world where I have to fight to get basic, and sometimes lifesaving, healthcare. Even if I do get healthcare, the treatment I get could be dangerous to my health and well-being, as this example so nicely shows.
    I can’t believe I live in a world where I still have to convince people that I am a citizen, and deserve basic rights like healthcare and bodily autonomy.
    I cannot believe that I have to convince people that I am more than a fucking incubator, that my life is worth more than how many babies I can spit out.
    I cannot believe that I live in a world where I have to convince people that I am fully human. I have hopes, dreams, ideas, plans, a mind and a personality just as much as anyone, and yet there are people in my society that think I should put all those things on hold indefinitely. To them my only hope should be to get married, dream should be to as many babies as possible, my only goal to be a wife and mother, my worth always less than that of my potential children.

    I am so tired. I am so tired of turning on the news every day and seeing that more people don’t consider me to be worth anything more than my womb. I am absolutely done putting up with it, so let me make my position clear:
    Fuck the patriarchy, may it be smashed into pieces.
    Fuck the Catholic church, whose misogynistic doctrines cause these kinds of laws to be made and give people a reason for carrying them out.
    Fuck all of the commenters who are trying to make excuses for this tragedy. The fetus was not going to survive no matter what, but the woman very well could have. The choice was clear, and the law is muddy enough that they could have gotten away with it either way. I don’t give a fuck how you want to defend this, you are defending the indefensible, and in the process you are making the lives of women collateral damage.
    And lastly, fuck all the accommodationists who try to tell me that I have to be civil to these monsters. I refuse to bargain with people who do not treat me like a full human being.

  54. Ogvorbis: resident of Threadruptia (and broken) says

    Criticize the doctors. Tell them they should have ignored the law, aborted the fetus, and gone to jail. I choose not to do that.

    The supreme court of Ireland has already upheld the legality of an abortion to save the life of the mother. All the doctors had to do was present the case, show that (a) a miscarriage was happening, (b) the foetus was too immature to survive, (c) and that the miscarriage was not progressing the way it should. That shows that a therapeutic abortion was necessary to prevent infection. So yes, we are criticizing the doctors because they were so afraid of a poorly articulated ruling and possible punishment by secular and religious bodies, that they allowed a human being to die.

    D- for (in)ability to look up available facts and to react to what a poster has actually written as opposed to what another poster has misquote or misparaphrased.

    Wait. Wasn’t nolajim the one who kept claiming that the infection only started after the foetus died? and in fact could only start after the foetus died? So who doesn’t bother to look up facts?

    How does the Horde grade nolajim’s performance?
    We received an A+ and a D-.
    What say you?

    F-

  55. Pteryxx says

    So yes, we are criticizing the doctors because they were so afraid of a poorly articulated ruling and possible punishment by secular and religious bodies, that they allowed a human being to die.

    Because the doctors’, say, 10% or 5% chance of prosecution or imprisonment is of greater concern than a mere woman’s 95% or greater chance of sepsis and death.

    Leaving this here: the Turnaway Study, funded entirely by donations, just released preliminary results on what happens to women denied abortions in the US.

    http://io9.com/5958187/what-happens-to-women-denied-abortions-this-is-the-first-scientific-study-to-find-out

    quoted from the American Public Health Association panels:

    We find physical health complications are more common and severe following birth (38% experience limited activity, average 10 days) compared to abortion (24% limited activity, average 2.7 days). There were no severe complications after abortion; after birth complications included seizure, fractured pelvis, infection and hemorrhage. We find no differences in chronic health conditions at 1 week or one year after seeking abortion.

  56. Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo says

    I realize that nolajim has flounced, but I figured a summation of all this might be useful:

    1. Savita, when she initially presented at the hospital, was not in acute risk of dying, as miscarriages usually spontaneously complete with small risk to the mother’s life or health.
    2. However, within 24 hours, when her miscarriage failed to spontaneously complete, her risk significantly elevated. The longer she remained with open membranes and a dilated cervix, her risk of contracting septicemia rose.
    3. She began showing symptoms of infection (fever, flushing, pain, collapse, etc) long before cessation of fetal cardiac rhythm.
    4. So long as the fetus remained within her, her cervix could not be manually closed and the risk of infection attenuated.
    5. Irish law (the Supreme Court ruling in the X case) explicitly allows for abortion to save the life of the mother.
    6. While the 1861 Violence Against the Persons Act was not written or passed at the behest of the RCC, the failure of Ireland to amend this law, or enact legislation in line with the X ruling, can be directly attributed to the influence of the RCC in Ireland in general and on the Dáil specifically.
    7. The fetus was actively dying, and at 17 weeks gestation was utterly nonviable: early delivery was not an option and would have accomplished nothing towards a goal of preserving the fetus’ life.
    8. Although University Hospital Galway is not a Catholic hospital, an honored and respected emeritus chair of the Obstetrics and Gynecology department being an anti-abortion absolutist and profound devotee of the RCC affected the culture of the hospital and the attitudes of the staff.
    9. Racism against an Indian and Hindu woman may well have been involved in the hesitation of the staff to apply applicable laws. Likewise, her requesting an abortion 24 hours after admission, before she began showing signs of infection, may have prejudiced the staff against considering aborting the fetus. The report that she was told that “this is a Catholic country” was possibly delivered in a pointed fashion with a subtext of “you are not of our people” and “you don’t belong here.”

    Did I miss anything?

  57. Ogvorbis: resident of Threadruptia (and broken) says

    Esteleth:

    Well, you did miss the bit about Ireland being a secular nation and the RCC is absolutely powerless.

  58. rq says

    Thanks for the summary, Esteleth. When laid out like that, it is amazing that nolajim continuously missed the point.

  59. Ogvorbis: resident of Threadruptia (and broken) says

    When laid out like that, it is amazing that nolajim continuously missed the point.

    nolajim seemed to be missing the point intentionally.

  60. Gregory Greenwood says

    blogofmyself @ 61;

    Fuck the Catholic church, whose misogynistic doctrines cause these kinds of laws to be made and give people a reason for carrying them out.

    Haven’t you heard? Opposing the church makes you its agent (its like the Dark Side of the Force – trying to fight them only delivers you into their power and leads to aftermarket cybernetic modification and red lightsabres), and while it is in part the church’s fault, it is really the fault of the Irish government, which doesn’t take its orders directly from Rome, and so the church isn’t actually involved at all, dontcha know. I mean, for that to happen one would have to accept that it is possible for a church to influence government policy without packing the legislature full of clergy, and that would be some kind of black deviltry…

    Also, lets not forget that it is impossible to both advocate for political reform and oppose the church at the same time – its one or the other, so criticising the church means that you don’t care about stopping the deaths of women denied abortion services… due to the social attitudes promoted by the church (let’s not linger on that logical inconsistency, moving swiftly on…)

    Oh, and the septicemia only set in after the foetus died (except that the symptoms were clearly present two days before the foetal heartbeat stopped, but just ignore that – facts confuse pink fuzzy ladybrains, as everyone knows), and so the doctors couldn’t do anything anyway because it would be illegal (except that the law already allows for abortions in cases where the woman’s life is threatened, but that’s just more of those oh-so inconvenient facts again – avert you eyes, ladies!). And it is hardly as though one can ask the doctors to risk imprisonment just to do something so insignificant as repairing the incubator saving the woman’s life. I mean, they might go to prison if they did that! Don’t you know how bad the food is in there?

    And anyone who says otherwise is simply mentally ill and in need of therapy (Ableism? What’s that?) and engaging in some form of ingroup/outgroup identity formation.

    —————————————————————-

    Today’s catholic apologia corner was sponsored by nolajim brand trolls.

    Nolajim – it gets to heights of wilful obtuseness other trolls cannot reach.

  61. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    nolajim seemed to be missing the point intentionally.

    Of course it was. It only wanted to deflect criticism from the RCC to either the politicians (not under the influence of the RCC of course), or to the doctors. The only way for that to happen is to ignore the facts that condemn the RCC for its obvious, though indirect, role in the bad and fatal decisions.

  62. Amphiox says

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physician's_Oath

    Note that “The health of my patient will be my first consideration” is fourth, while “I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity” is second last, and preceded in the same sentence by “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life; even under threat

    If a conflict ever arises between a patient’s health and life and the law of the land, a conscientious physician is bound, by his or her professional oath, to put the patient first.

    Also, hospitals have ethics boards and legal departments. If the law is unclear, physicians can freely consult with these experts to find out if what they think they need to do for their patient does or does not contravene the law. (Though in this case the hospital’s ethics board may have been similarly tainted with Catholic ideology)

  63. Ogvorbis: resident of Threadruptia (and broken) says

    Nerd:

    Sorry. I was deliberately understating for sarcasm. Failed again. Sorry.

  64. Q.E.D says

    Josh @ 109

    Yes, the system needs to change. Big time. And no, the staff aren’t responsible for the predicament that is abortion in Ireland. But decent people goddamn well have a duty not to let someone die because they’re afraid they’ll have to answer to an inquiry later..

    I’m a lawyer not a doctor (Jim)! But why the fuck didn’t the doctors go to the top hospital administrator with the hospital lawyer and say: “this woman will die unless we terminate the pregnancy, here is my medical opinion in writing, I’ve emailed you a copy. Your call.”

    If the answer is, “do it”: great, life saved.

    If the answer is “no”: then explain, “I’m walking down the hall to call the Irish times to name you and explain the situation”.

  65. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Sorry. I was deliberately understating for sarcasm. Failed again. Sorry.

    Sorry, I was agreeing with you and adding my own commentary. No criticism of you was intended.

  66. Ogvorbis: resident of Threadruptia (and broken) says

    Sorry, I was agreeing with you and adding my own commentary. No criticism of you was intended.

    No problem. Besides:

    It’s OK.
    Ing is responsible.

    I thought it was Rebecca Watson.

    (META: Someday, I hope to meet many of you in meatspace. I also hope to meet Rebecca Watson so I can thank her and apologize for my humour (or lack thereof).)

  67. says

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/#49831648

    … they didn’t get the memo in Ohio. Today, a house committee approved a bill to essentially defund planned parenthood. House bill 298 passed on a party line vote, and it will strip $1.7 million from planned parenthood. 100,000 women in the state use planned parenthood, mostly for preventative care and birth control. Every single medical professional in the state testified against the bill.

    At a news conference opposing the measure, ohio state Senator Nina Turner wore a t-shirt, offering a different meaning for GOP. [Get Out of My Panties]

    Ohio Republicans also want to revive the so-called heartbeat bill, which would unconstitutionally ban all abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected.

  68. unclefrogy says

    I get the impression from some here (nojim) that if the Godfather told “someone” that Mr X needed to die and that He the Godfather would be pleased and would continue to do business with the killer and be pleased with the killer Such that “someone” actually does kill Mr X that the Godfather would not be guilty of the death and conspiracy to comet murder because “The Godfather” did not kill anyone himself?
    is that what I am hearing if that has already been answered I am sorry to repeat it
    uncle frogy

  69. nolajim says

    I am still here, but only reading for the time being. I shall bide my time until some of the reviews now underway in Irleand are done, or significant additional facts otherwise come out.

  70. Beatrice says

    Janine,

    He must still be processing those additional facts about Savita Halappanavar slowly dying of a life threatening infection which doctors refused to treat. After all, they were repeated only… what, twenty times, thirty?

  71. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    Nolajim’s most recent response reminds me of those wonderful hyperskeptics. I also notice he still can’t be bothered with the facts (its not as if Beatrice didn’t give a cliffs notes version upthread). He is sticking to his misguided beliefs in the face of any and all arguments to the contrary. Why, he’s downright dogmatic. One wonders-again-if he really is Catholic.

  72. hfj001 says

    Just for the sake of sharing… After it took German media about 24 hours to break the story to their readers, their commentary sections virtually exploded – and that’s where I came across one particularly cynical comment:
    ‘This way two souls made it to heaven, and one of them even without having to undergo a sinner’s terrene life.’
    (Of course, this was a satirical posting; hopefully, nobody really thinks in such twisted ways.)

  73. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    My apologies. It was ESTELETH who posted the highlights of this thread.

  74. rq says

    hfj001 – There was some discussion (slightly related to this topic) that occurred in a different thread a couple of days ago, about how one can buy absolution for oneself. With things like this in mind, because innocence.

    “nolajim: works at the pace of your local legislation. glacially slow.”

  75. Mr. Fire says

    I am still here, but only reading for the time being. I shall bide my time until some of the reviews now underway in Irleand are done

    While you bide your time and read, would you be so kind as to bother looking again at Esteleth’s summary and Gregory Greenwood’s comment, the better to understand why people consider you obtuse at best, and a liar at worst?

  76. Josh, Official SpokesGay says

    MrFire! It’s damned good to see you around here! What are you doing when not monitoring nolajim while he bides his time?

  77. jose says

    So patheos’ catholics are finally speaking and saying that atheists are such meanies because they talk about this a lot and it’s making the church look bad.

  78. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Gee, why does nolajim think: 1) it deals in real facts, and 2) we give a shit about its unevidenced opinions. Both are delusions on its part.

  79. No Light says

    blogofmyself

    Welcome. Have a hug, some cake, and a sisterly solidarity fistbump.

    Sometimes the hurt and rage against the system which paints us as lesser and disposable, whose wheels are greased by hatred of women and of the feminine, gets too much. It makes me want to scream, to just give up.

    Then I remember that the patriarchy won’t fucking smash itself, that kyriarchy can’t be turned on it’s head by resignation and tears.

    One day, one day…

    NolaJim

    I promise, I absolutely do, that nobody here will grieve too hard, be struck by intractable sadness, if you fuck off and never come back.

    We will be brave, have fortitude, as we think of you wandering alone and barefoot through a world carpeted with Lego and pinecones.

    Hell, we may even raise a smile.

    So go, leave us, and don’t worry about how we’ll cope without you. We’ll be just fine.

  80. says

    Jose

    So patheos’ catholics are finally speaking and saying that atheists are such meanies because they talk about this a lot and it’s making the church look bad.

    Links, please *Bambi-eyes*

    Oh, anybody heard anything from the most moral Chris Stedman on this?

  81. dianne says

    Links, please *Bambi-eyes*

    Wait…hang on a second…(Sends 8 mg IV zofran and 10 mg IV decadron to each reader’s USB port)…maybe a bit more…(hands out prn compazine and reglan through the USB port)…almost there…(hands out barf bags via USB)…Ok. Ready for strongly emetic links from patheos.

  82. nolajim says

    Chigau @#84 –

    I’ll take a moment to respond to your direct question. I have reviewed Esteleth’s excellent summary, and it appears to me to be accurate. I suspect it leaves out a couple of important points, though. And these points, if accurate, imply that there is a significant secular component to the issue. That is all I’ve ever claimed, that there is a large secular aspect to be considered her (not as misparaphrased, implying that I’m trying to protect the RCC from culpability). The points are:

    1 – As dreadful as the situation was, the mother’s life was not in immanent danger when she was first admitted to hospital. The progression of her condition was by no means surprising, but not a certainty at the outset.

    2 – That being the case, the doctors and the hospital were reasonably correct in their interpretation of Irish law, which prohibits abortion unless there is a real threat to the mother’s life, not a potential threat. That doesn’t make what happened ethical or medically defensible. It just makes the situation legally comprehensible.

    3 – Irish abortion law has been in a state of incompletion and non-clarity for close to 20 years now. This is an on-going debate, well known by both the public and the political parties.. Most Irish citizens actually want abortion to be legal in a situation like Savita’s. A solution (greater clarity in Ireland’s law) is near at hand, if the political will can be found to take the last step.

    4 – The hospital reviewed the situation several times. It came to same conclusion each time: an abortion would not be legal. Might they have been wrong about that? Possibly. But likely their error was well within the fuzziness of Irish abortion law. It is far less likely that there was some kind of conspiracy of administrators and doctors to deny the patient a legal abortion that would have save her life.

    I reitirate my simple position: the RCC did not kill Savita; the Irish state killed Savita. That doesn’t mean the RCC is not culpable. It is guilty of resisting change, of actively working to maintain an archaic and oppresive law. But the state has known for 18 years that there is a serious problem with the clarity of the law, this from its own Supreme Court.. The state has been critized by various European courts and agencies for the existing vaguaries of the law. The state can resolve all this be focussing on the medical, legal, and politcal aspects of the problem.

  83. rq says

    nolajim
    Nobody disputes that at the outset her condition was good. But it deteriorated over days, where within one day it was obvious that her life was in danger, and they still refused the abortion.
    IT WAS A CERTAINTY AFTER 24 HOURS. THAT HER LIFE WAS IN DANGER. YET SHE WAS IN AGONY FOR SEVERAL MORE DAYS. BECAUSE THEY REFUSED TO DO FUCK ALL FOR A WOMAN IN AGONY BECAUSE OF SOME TWITCHY MUSCLE THAT WAS DYING INSIDE HER AND OBVIOUSLY KILLING HER.

    I’m sorry for yelling and I’m also sorry I can’t make my caps lock any bigger. I was getting louder towards the end there.

    I don’t usually yell.

  84. rq says

    Also I didn’t get past your first point, there, nolajim, I’m going to go puke, and then maybe I’ll try to finish your comment.

  85. No Light says

    Dianne – I can send out some USB fentanyl to sedate people who become ill and upset after going to God’s Enablers Patheos to read the vomit spewed up over there.

    I’ll fold up some patches. and push them into my pad’s USB port. Go easy guys, they’re strong.

    NolaJim – you keep. talking, but all I hear is “Blahblahblahdon’tblametheRapingChildrenChurchwahwahnottheirfaultblahblahsecularIreland”

  86. Ichthyic says

    While you bide your time and read, would you be so kind as to bother looking again at Esteleth’s summary and Gregory Greenwood’s comment,

    or again, Jen’s summary of what is currently known, for facts.

    I do notice Noddin’Jim has not conceded he was COMPLETELY WRONG in his assessment of there being no infection until after the fetus died, also that even before the obvious signs of infection, the leaking of amniotic fluid (again, observed by both doctors and the husband), indicated torn membranes, which, again, is HIGHLY risk indicative for infection.

    fuck the hell off, Noddin’Jim.

  87. Beatrice says

    re: link at #98
    The author is appropriately angry, but then plays No True Catholic. He does take a jibe at both the pro choicers and pro lifers.

  88. Ichthyic says

    As dreadful as the situation was, the mother’s life was not in immanent danger when she was first admitted to hospital. The progression of her condition was by no means surprising, but not a certainty at the outset.

    backpedal much?

    now you’re saying “when she walked in the door….”

    seriously, you are the most dishonest prick I have seen this week.

    and that’s saying a lot.

    you should just leave.

  89. Ichthyic says

    The hospital reviewed the situation several times.

    you have evidence of this?

    what am I saying? Of course you don’t.

    FUCK.

    OFF.

    YOU.

    DISHONEST.

    SHIT.

  90. Ichthyic says

    That doesn’t mean the RCC is not culpable.

    *headdesk*

    seriously, you’re a moron. anyone ever tell you that?

  91. Beatrice says

    another re: #98 and #105

    OMG, and then a commenter complains that “a disclaimer, profanity, name-calling, judgment and utter anger still detract from the message of love and the teachings of our Church that you’re trying to make”.

    The author is rightfully angry over Savita Halappanavar’s death, and then an even truer Catholic complains about the tone. Jesus. People.

  92. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Frankly nolajim has been so loose and careless with the facts, every claim it makes must be backed up with a citation to the third party literature in order to be believed. That way, it can be sure it isn’t spouting nonsensical opinion as pretend facts.

  93. dianne says

    No light: What about some ativan to go with the fentanyl? It’s got some antiemetic and sedating qualities. (Do you think we’ve attracted the DEA’s notice yet with all this drug talk?)

    Nola, if you’re wondering what would have happened with competent care, I can tell you a little about a similar case I’ve seen. A woman who is 18 weeks pregnant comes into the hospital with a condition that is either something that requires the end of pregnancy to cure or something else. Sorry about the vagueness. HIPPA, you know.

    She wasn’t in too bad of shape-walking, talking, not febrile, etc, but was high risk for getting sicker. Much sicker, very quickly. The first place she went is the ICU. The first thing that happened was the “pan-consult” effect: everyone who might be able to help was called to give advice.

    It quickly became clear that the problem was one that required the end of the pregnancy and that furthermore the fetus was in bad shape and not going to make it to an age that survival was even vaguely possible. She had an abortion within the hour. She left the hospital, healthy and still fertile, within a few days. If we’d waited for the fetus to be definitively dead, she would have at least have been in need of a liver transplant, possibly also dialysis and might have gone into status epilepticus. And the fetus would have died anyway. Which do you think the better, more moral solution would be?

  94. rq says

    Beatrice
    Read link @98; was slightly sick to stomach.
    Because seriously?? His goddamnnned fault? And him voluntarily being all ashamed of oneself will magically make everything ok? Or what? I didn’t get it.
    Now he’ll get some nice head-patting and sympathy about how it’s ok, he’s not really to blame, he’s a good person and all is forgiven, and OH LOOK it’s all about him, not Savita (BTW, is it Savita or Savitha? I’ve seen both.).

  95. Beatrice says

    Ichthyic,

    Not sure, but I hope he doesn’t have high blood pressure problems, because the comment will make his pressure soar for sure.

  96. Tethys says

    1 – As dreadful as the situation was, the mother’s life was not in immanent danger when she was first admitted to hospital. The progression of her condition was by no means surprising, but not a certainty at the outset.

    Wrong again, you piece of pondscum.
    Failed miscarriage =sepsis =death is a certainty.

    Pregnancy is always a risk to the life of the mother. Her life was in danger when she presented, and the doomed and actively dying pregnancy should have been terminated ASAP to save her life.

  97. Beatrice says

    More No True Catholic: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2012/11/15/savitas-tragic-death-could-have-been-avoided/
    (+ medical negligence which probably isn’t related to religion at all. no sir, no, no. Forget the whole “this is a Catholic country” [or alternatively, look above at No True Catholic])

    The standing on his head idiot doesn’t pull any punches:
    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2012/11/savita-halappanavars-death.html
    Baby killers, blah, blah.

  98. Beatrice says

    Giliell,

    I noticed that too. I really hate when a tragedy description starts with ” a beautiful…” She was beautiful and vibrant so it’s such a shame what happened. If she’d been an ugly depressed shut-in, I guess it wouldn’t have been so bad. At least that’s the implication.

  99. rq says

    Read the posts. Feel sick a bit more. I don’t know how people can be in such denial.
    I should get off these threads and get to serious work, but.

  100. rq says

    Ichthyic
    It’s depress-yourself day everywhere today. I can’t get away from these posts, either. :(

    Beatrice re: second link
    Is that guy, there at the end, doing the ‘ten lives or one hundred lives’ dance? When he should be saying, Even one is too much?

  101. Beatrice says

    rq,

    But that wouldn’t make his point that legal abortion leads to millions and millions of gruesome murders and infanticide, now would it?
    (since he’s talking about a doctor doing unsafe and illegal (late term) abortions for women who probably can’t afford better and sooner abortions, he is actually making a case for better access to safe abortions, btw. I sort of love how that point flew over his head, while he was spitting in anger over baby killers)

  102. rq says

    Beatrice
    Yeah, it does seem to be a strange point of irony that they miss. *sigh* Well, they kill babies and their mothers, so if he wants to do numbers…

  103. jose says

    It is rich when your religion lobbies government and culture equally to the point that doctors are hesitant or plain afraid of doing something that might take them before a court, and then claim that your religion had nothing to do with the negligence that killed this woman.

    Why the hell did they check the fetus’ heartbeat? No, it was totally not because catholics have been lobbying for that or anything. Of courne catholics have nothing to do with that. In fact, the doctor who said “this is a catholic country … it’s the law” is probably an atheist who just wants to make the church look bad.

    Goddammit.

    In other news, catholicism-is-morally-true Libresco is just posting pictures of Jesus.

  104. nolajim says

    Someone above request a thrid-party citation for my position. Here is one:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/1115/1224326605995.html

    “An early medical intervention, according to the testimony of husband Praveen Halappanavar, appears to have been ruled out by attending doctors because a foetal heartbeat was still being recorded. Such an interpretation of their ethical obligations to the foetus, it is certainly arguable, perhaps unfortunately, may well be in line with the constitutional prohibition on abortion except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as opposed to the health, of the mother. Medical Council ethical guidelines also allow that “In … exceptional circumstances, it may be necessary to intervene to terminate the pregnancy to protect the life of the mother, while making every effort to preserve the life of the baby.

    “Was the view being taken by the medical team that, although in deep discomfort and pain and bearing a foetus that could not go to term, and despite the subsequent outcome, Savita Halappanavar’s life was not actually threatened in the early stages of her crisis, even if the life-threatening possibilities were inherent in her condition? Were they therefore constrained not to perform an abortion?

    “The problem is that such a good faith medical diagnosis, which may well vary from hospital to hospital as a report in this paper yesterday pointed out, draws us into a grey, and perhaps unjusticiable, area of the current law. And it begs questions not so much about the conduct of the Galway medical team as about the inadequacy of the Constitution’s already controversial provisions. Would the Irish people really wish to deny a woman in her position an abortion when, legally speaking, her life could not be said to be in jeopardy?”

  105. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    blogofmyself @61:
    I read your comment as I was driving home from work. I’m so sorry. I wish I could offer something more substantial than this, but (((hugs))).
    And I second your fuck you to all the appropriate parties.

  106. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Such an interpretation of their ethical obligations to the foetus, it is certainly arguable, perhaps unfortunately, may well be in line with the constitutional prohibition on abortion except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as opposed to the health, of the mother. M

    Bullshit, as has been explained to you by medical personnel here on this blog. The paper is irrelevant. As is your unmedically trained interpretation of events. Try harder to get real evidence, or shut the fuck up.

  107. nolajim says

    BTW: the position I’m taking is extremely close to that of the Irish Times, as described in its editorial, above.

  108. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    the position I’m taking is extremely close to that of the Irish Times, as described in its editorial, above.

    Who gives a shit what a fuckwitted idjit with a presupposition thinks? No body here gives a shit about your OPINION. Either present real medical evidence, or shut the fuck up.

  109. nolajim says

    Nerd of Redhead: None of us has the medical facts in this case. We have claims by the aggrieved husband, vauge newspaper reports, editorials, and an excess of speculative bloguery. Unless somebody here has Savita’s as-yet-unpublished medical records, or results of the yet-to-be-completed formal inquiries, we are all filling in some serious blanks.

  110. nolajim says

    Or are you claiming to have ESP? Do you actually know what the doctor’s saw, what is written in the patient’s chart? Did you have an audio bug recording the discussion in the administrator’s office as they discussed the case and how to handle it?

  111. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    nolajim @100:
    Ah, the Catholic apologetics continue.
    I see you learned nothing from the discourse last night. I will preempt you and inform you that you said nothing that anyone here needed to hear. Nor did you add anything substantial to our understanding of the tragedy that was Savita’s death. You added Catholic apologetics. I did learn because of your comments that some people (yes, you’re included in this) around the world have horrible reading and comprehension skills.

    As dreadful as the situation was, the mother’s life was not in immanent danger when she was first admitted to hospital. The progression of her condition was by no means surprising, but not a certainty at the outset.

    Aside from the fact that simply being pregnant is stressful on a woman’s body (and indeed can be life threatening on its own), she was displaying signs of being septic *before* the fetus’ heartbeat stopped. So knowing the symptoms of septicemia, and knowing how quickly it can set it, the doctors refused to give her the abortion that she asked for.

    Also, let me add that it really doesn’t fucking matter if she was septic or not. She asked for an abortion. She damn well should have gotten it. Without hesitation. Perhaps if she weren’t in “Catholic country” that might have happened. Instead, the staff spat (not literally; I forget you have difficulty understanding how words can take on different meanings) on her. They treated her like she did not have bodily autonomy. They treated her like the only value she had was a human incubator. They placed higher value on a dying fetus than on an existing human. They may as well have said “Shut up baby maker”, for all that they listened to her wishes.

    That being the case, the doctors and the hospital were reasonably correct in their interpretation of Irish law, which prohibits abortion unless there is a real threat to the mother’s life, not a potential threat.

    Would you stop being so goddamned dishonest and admit-as it is well known-that by the second day, signs of septicemia were noticeable? The fetus’ heartbeat was still going and she was showing the signs of being septic. Fucking admit that you lying douchebag. Stop trying to insist on your own private narrative of events and actually pay attention to what happened.

    I reitirate my simple position: the RCC did not kill Savita; the Irish state killed Savita.

    I reiterate my simple position:
    The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church has heavily influenced legislation in the country of Ireland, as well as the views of many of that country’s citizens. Those teachings have resulted in resistance to abortion-again there is no secular reason to deny a woman bodily autonomy-and legislation that all but makes abortion illegal (except where a woman’s life is in jeopardy from the pregnancy).

    The state can resolve all this be focussing on the medical, legal, and politcal aspects of the problem.

    Oh, so you’re confident they’re just going to ignore the cries of the Roman Catholic Church I see. This is based on what? Is there any reason to think that Catholic officials won’t fight tooth and nail to prevent any headway in the secular battle for women’s rights? Why do you think the laws are this way to begin with?
    Because of the power of the Catholic Church.
    As long as you fail to recognize and accept this, you’re going to continue being a wrongheaded shitbag.

  112. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    None of us has the medical facts in this case.

    Sorry, the experience of medical personnel who have treated such conditions is on hand here at Pharyngula, in case you haven’t been noticing the expert opinions toasting your idiocy. Your OPINION is worthless, and the OPINION of the newspaper, compared to real expert opinions. You lose. Your efforts to muddy the waters only show the incompetence of the medical personnel in Ireland, which comes about due to the influence of the RCC in preventing real medically required abortions to happen with appropriate ease and quickness.

  113. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Or are you claiming to have ESP? Do you actually know what the doctor’s saw, what is written in the patient’s chart? Did you have an audio bug recording the discussion in the administrator’s office as they discussed the case and how to handle it?

    No, my claim is your ignorance in reporting and your incompetence in pretending to be an expert witness despite repeated refutation by licensed medical personnel here at this blog. YOUR OPINION ISN’T WORTH THE ELECTRONS USED TO POST IT. SHUT THE FUCK UP UNLESS YOU ARE A MEDICAL EXPERT.

  114. consciousness razor says

    Someone above request a thrid-party citation for my position.

    So you give an opinion piece (with an unidentified author, no less). It’s fucking fantastic how patently stupid and/or dishonest you’re being.

    An early medical intervention, according to the testimony of husband Praveen Halappanavar, appears to have been ruled out by attending doctors because a foetal heartbeat was still being recorded.

    So… It wasn’t life-threatening because the fetus still had a heartbeat? What the fuck kind of doctors are these?

    Oh, right: they thought an abortion wasn’t ethical because the fetus still had a heartbeat, not that the situation wasn’t life-threatening.

    No matter what their justification was, it was bullshit, because fetal fucking heartbeats are not magic: they do not prevent or reduce or in any way mitigate the threat to the woman’s life.

    (Reminds me of a woman’s magic powers of avoiding pregnancy when she’s suffered a “legitimate rape.” The lack of any physical mechanism, the total disregard for their ethical obligations to the woman, etc., etc.)

    Such an interpretation of their ethical obligations to the foetus, it is certainly arguable, perhaps unfortunately, may well be in line with the constitutional prohibition on abortion except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life, as opposed to the health, of the mother.

    Nope. See above. It’s just a load of religious bullshit.

    BTW: the position I’m taking is extremely close to that of the Irish Times, as described in its editorial, above.

    Then it’s bullshit.

  115. nolajim says

    Tony Queer-Duck: I have confidence that you are right, the church will, as you say, “fight tooth and nail to prevent any headway in the secular battle for women’s rights.” They deserve to be confronted about that.

  116. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    They deserve to be confronted about that.

    Then quit trying to apologize for their behavior, minimize their influence, and shut the fuck up about them not having the influence they do on Irish abortion policy.

  117. nolajim says

    nolajim’s epitaph: killed by deranged blogging sharks in a feeding frenzy. His crime: daring to suggest that small changes in existing law are best handled as a secular issue instead of a religious one. His accusers: a bunch of church-hating, neurotic obsessives who think there is a Cardinal in every closet and a priest in every Pantry.

  118. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    For Fucks Sake, you are the most dense person I’ve ever had the displeasure of engaging nolajim:

    Someone above request a thrid-party citation for my position.

    You’re supporting your pathetic arguments with Catholic influenced bullshit??

    An early medical intervention, according to the testimony of husband Praveen Halappanavar, appears to have been ruled out by attending doctors because a foetal heartbeat was still being recorded.

    My emphasis is telling. They’re focused on Catholic teachings about fetuses. They’re worried about the damned heartbeat of the child, despite the deteriorating health of Savita. So we’re back to putting responsibility on the doctors. And the Roman Catholic Church.

    As for the rest, Savita was in more than discomfort by the second day. Again, from PZ’s link:

    Speaking from Belgaum in the Karnataka region of southwest India, Mr Halappanavar said an internal examination was performed when she first presented.

    “The doctor told us the cervix was fully dilated, amniotic fluid was leaking and unfortunately the baby wouldn’t survive.” The doctor, he says, said it should be over in a few hours. There followed three days, he says, of the foetal heartbeat being checked several times a day.

    When she was first brought in, she was leaking amniotic fluid and they knew the baby wouldn’t survive. That was the *first* fucking day. That’s the first clue that something *could* be up. By the second day, when the baby hadn’t died yet, the doctors should have done something… like abort the baby like she asked for in the first place.

  119. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    nolajim @144:
    Fuck you, you Catholic Church enabling martyr.

  120. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    His crime [being a tedious and inane catholoic apologist who would lie and bullshit to excuse the RCC from their complicity in the death of a woman]

    Fixed that for you abject loser.

  121. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Oh, and your suggestion of Ireland being a “secular state” is utterly and totally unevidenced. The evidence, as in this case, shows the Irish government under the thumb of the RCC. Show otherwise with conclusive evidence showing complete independence of RCC influence on the secular government…OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.

  122. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    How can someone be so ignorant of the tremendous influence the RCC has in politics. We see it here in Savita’s case. We saw it in the United States in the wake of the passing of the Affordable Care Act. It doesn’t take much to realize that when people use religious reasoning to make their decisions about the health and well-being of others that religion is at the heart of those all-too-often tragic decisions.

    nolajim:
    Catholic teaching directly led to Savita’s death. The laws on the books wrt abortion were there because of the influence of Catholic teachings. Remove that religious bullshit and there are no secular roadblocks to full bodily autonomy for women.

  123. nolajim says

    Tony: I have acknowledge the very real and insidious influence of the Catholic church. But you’ll need to review the history of Ireland’s abortion law, which Ireland actually inherited from British law, where it grew under the watch of the Church of England, not the RCC. The Irish court case that loosened that inherited absolute ban to make room for the life of the mother happend 18 years ago, in Ireland, under the watch of the RCC.

  124. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    But you’ll need to review the history of Ireland’s abortion law,

    And that has been reviewed here, and you lose again. You have nothing whatsoever to add to this discussion, unless you cite the source for each and every claim you make. And at the end of the day, all you are doing is excusing and apologizing for the RCC influence on the abortion laws. You aren’t changing the paradigm one iota with your inane fuckwittery.

  125. consciousness razor says

    nolajim:

    I guess I haven’t heard enough bullshit today, so please explain how her life wasn’t threatened because the fetus had a heartbeat. If you think the doctors’ decisions agreed with the law as it stands, I want to know exactly how incompetent and unethical you think they are.

  126. nolajim says

    Consciousness Razor: I don’t know if the mother’s life was at risk or not, and neither do you, since, as I’ve said, none of has the full medical facts. The fact that the fetus had a heartbeat doesn’t change whether or not the mother’s life was at risk. But it changes the legal question the doctor’s were faced with. IF the fetus had a heartbeat, THEN they believe the law prohibited an abortion unless the mother’s life was a risk. Their interpretation of the maddeningly vague Irish law was (most likely) that they could terminate the pregnancy if the mother’s life were really at risk, but not if it might (or even probably would) be at risk at some point in the future. Effectively, there were betting that the fetus would die before the mother did, and felt the law required them to play that game. Yes, this is guesswork. No, we won’t really know until an ivestigation is completed.

  127. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Irrelevant nolajim, we already knew that, and it explains the RCC influence. What new do you have? Or do you have nothing but your fuckwitted OPINION?

  128. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I don’t know if the mother’s life was at risk or not,

    Then shut the fuck up. You aren’t trained medical personnel.

    But it changes the legal question the doctor’s were faced with.

    This has nothing to do with anything other than the RCC influence, and you know that. Why is it even relevant, considering the evidence presented by trained medical personnel from US, Canada, England, and Australia showing the medical malpractice by the Irish doctors?

  129. mildlymagnificent says

    Now, I *DO* feel that the doctor’s aren’t to blame. Their hands were tied by Irish law.

    I wonder. Would nolajim understand a paragraph that included all the expressions
    - Irish politics , unethical medical decisions , death of a woman , Roman Catholic Church , elephant in the room?

    Or maybe not?

  130. bargearse says

    nolajim

    You say you’re not a Catholic but so far I’ve seen:

    - deflection of blame from the church
    - repeated refusal to acknowledge counter-arguments and evidence (in some cases from actual doctors)
    - a burst of self-righteousness a couple of hundred comments ago
    - finally you declared yourself a martyr to to the truth
    and everyone else a bunch of, “church-hating, neurotic obsessives.”

    You managed to do all this while displaying a shocking lack of empathy or outrage over what was done to Savita Halappanavar.

    You should consider converting to Catholicism, you’d be good at it.

  131. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Time limit exceded for today.

    Translation, I’ve been refuted seven ways from my imaginary holy day.

  132. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    nolajim:

    But you’ll need to review the history of Ireland’s abortion law, which Ireland actually inherited from British law, where it grew under the watch of the Church of England, not the RCC. The Irish court case that loosened that inherited absolute ban to make room for the life of the mother happend 18 years ago, in Ireland, under the watch of the RCC.

    Ok, so we need to substitute one superstitious, patriarchal, woman hating, authoritarian religious organization with another? Other than superficialities, how does that the change the religious influence on so-called secular laws?

  133. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    nolajim @154:
    As has been pointed out to you, just being pregnant is dangerous for women. It’s 9 (ish) months of high risk.

  134. FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker) says

    I start to write something and then I walk away. I’ve been accused of being eloquent and yet the words are jamming up in my brain, there’s a thicket of emotion blocking their escape. I walk away and come back, again and again, this won’t let me go.

    A woman dies, horribly, unnecessarily, rotting from within, killed by a slab of flesh that could never be the son or daughter that perhaps she wanted. She begs those who have the skills to end her pain, to heal her, and they refuse. That refusal is a death sentence and more. For it wasn’t carried out swiftly, mercifully, it was carried out by allowing her to suffer in a way that beggars imagination.

    Outrage follows, how could it not? Barbarism is barbarism and those with eyes unblinkered by religion can see it clearly. Calls for justice ring out, again, how could they not? The search for those to blame begins. And here’s where all goes strange for me.

    I cannot fathom how anyone can look at this situation and attempt to mitigate any part of it. From the doctors to the society in which it occurred there is culpability at every level. I refuse, flat out refuse, to say that this aspect or that aspect is ‘really’ to blame.

    Fuck it. Fuck it all. Blame is not a binary, it’s not a finite resource, and it for fucking sure is not something to be played with in order to get the ego boost of being ‘right’ about one’s opinion.

    A woman died.

    Weep.

    Mourn.

    Rage.

    Change the fucking world so it can’t happen again.

    Change it in ever way possible.

    By every means possible.

    To do any less is monstrous.

  135. consciousness razor says

    Effectively, there were betting that the fetus would die before the mother did,

    That’d be awfully stupid. You don’t need to wait until the fetus is dead to know if it will almost certainly die; and in any case, the fetus obviously doesn’t need to be dead (or mostly dead, or probably dead, or alive, or slapping you in the face with a red fucking herring) to know the mother’s life is at risk.

    and felt the law required them to play that game.

    As you just agreed, a fetal heartbeat is not relevant to whether or not the woman’s life is threatened. That is not how you measure the risk to her life. Can pregnant women die while supporting a living fetus? Yes, they certainly can. Any doctor would know that. So the only interpretation of the law which makes any sense is that it permits aborting living fetuses if the woman’s life is at risk. Not just dead fetuses. Because the law is conditional on the woman’s life, not on the fetus’.

    Yes, this is guesswork.

    And it’s also terrible as a justification for their actions. So it’s both bullshit for being speculative and bullshit for being nonsensical.

  136. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    yo NOLAJIM:
    Courtesy of Ophelia:

    The Secular Medical Forum believes that this death could have been prevented if Ireland’s law on abortion focused upon the need of vulnerable patients, rather than upon Catholic doctrine. The SMF believes that healthcare should be provided free from the intrusion of religion. Bioethics is hindered, not helped, by relying upon religious sentiments. http://www.secularmedicalforum.org.uk/2012/11/woman-died-after-denied-an-abortion-was-told-that-ireland-is-a-catholic-country/

    Please read. Absorb. Digest. Comprehend.

  137. Ogvorbis: ջարդված says

    I have acknowledge the very real and insidious influence of the Catholic church

    No. No. No.

    You wrote this earlier:

    The law of Ireland is passed by the elected legislature, not by the Pope. Yes, it might take more balls than some have to stand up to the Church. But stand up to the powerless church is all they have to do if Ireland wants to change this law.

    Well, which is it? Is the Catholic Church powerless in Ireland? Or does it have a real and insidious influence?

    META:

    Why do commenters fail to realize that we can read upthread (okay, a previous page) and see what they actually wrote?

  138. Rodney Nelson says

    So has Father nolajim flounced for the night? Is it time for him to commune with his bishop to get further instructions on how to lie about his church’s teachings? Because the Catholic apologetics Father nolajim is spouting are getting a little threadworn.

  139. Mr. Fire says

    His crime: daring to suggest that small changes in existing law are best handled as a secular issue instead of a religious one.

    This in of itself was not the crime.

    The crime was your inexplicably stubborn, tone-deaf, and monomaniacal insistence upon it, despite numerous posts attempting to point the obvious fallacy it contained.

  140. says

    nolajim’s epitaph:

    Oh lord, you’re so fucking dramatic. This isn’t a shark tank, you aren’t some unspoiled innocent, and you didn’t die.

    Although I’m starting to hope you forget how to use a computer.

  141. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Finally saw what nolajim wrote at #144.

    My my, aren’t you the snide little pile of shit.

    I bet you are suffering just as much as Savita Halappanavar did while being denied the abortion that would have saved her live.

    Sorry, but we will continue the words that will kill you.

    Our collective hands are tied.

  142. Mr. Fire says

    It’s almost ironic, actually. nolajim brings a new meaning, in all the worst ways, to the phrase “separation of church and state”.

    +++++++

    Hey Josh! I should send you an email, fill you in on how things are going chez Fire.

  143. nolajim says

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20121115/eu-ireland-abortion/

    Irish gynecologists demanded Thursday that the government close a 20-year-old hole in the country’s abortion law that leaves them fearing prosecution if they abort a fetus to protect a woman’s life.

    “We would like to be able to practice medicine in a safe environment legally. The current situation is like a sword of Damocles hanging over us,” Dr. Peter Boylan of the Irish Institute of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said Thursday. “If we do something with a good intention, but it turns out to be illegal, the consequences are extremely serious for medical practitioners.”

    . . .

    Some of Ireland’s leading experts on maternal care said they long had feared that a death like Halappanavar’s would happen – not because doctors don’t want to save the lives of their patients, but because Irish law on abortion makes them fearful of taking action on borderline cases.

    . . .

    While he declined to discuss Halappanavar’s case specifically, he noted that cases such as hers, where a woman’s cervix is fully dilated for days and the risk of infection grows, represent a potentially life-threatening condition but not a certain one.

    ” There are very few absolute certainties in medicine,” he said. “As you get less probable, that’s where we run into difficulties. … there are circumstances where our hands are tied.”

  144. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Some of Ireland’s leading experts on maternal care said they long had feared that a death like Halappanavar’s would happen – not because doctors don’t want to save the lives of their patients, but because Irish law on abortion makes them fearful of taking action on borderline cases.

    And this is due to the RCC not wanting to open the legal definition of what is a legal abortion, and you know that. Why do you keep pretending there is no influence on the government by the RCC,when the null hypothesis, well confirmed by copious evidence, shows that is the case? What do you really have to add to any discussion that we don’t already know? NOTHING.

  145. Ogvorbis: ջարդված says

    nolajim:

    Is the Roman Catholic Church a ‘very real and insidious influence’ in the medical politics of Ireland (your words)? Or is it ‘the powerless church’ (also your words)?

  146. nolajim says

    Nerd of Redhead: Why do you keep putting words into my mouth? At no point have I claimed or implied that “there is no influence on the government by the RCC.” You’re reducing shades of gray to a binary black and white.

  147. Ogvorbis: ջարդված says

    nolajim:

    At no point have I claimed or implied that “there is no influence on the government by the RCC.” You’re reducing shades of gray to a binary black and white.

    Your words:

    The law of Ireland is passed by the elected legislature, not by the Pope. Yes, it might take more balls than some have to stand up to the Church. But stand up to the powerless church is all they have to do if Ireland wants to change this law.

    Your words. My emphasis.

  148. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    You are in no position to whine about putting words in peoples’ mouth, nolajim. You are guilty of doing that.

    So? How much suffering have you gone through being attacked by the in-group dynamics of this shark tank?

  149. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Why do you keep putting words into my mouth? At no point have I claimed or implied that “there is no influence on the government by the RCC.” You’re reducing shades of gray to a binary black and white.

    Then you need to stop your fuckwitted claim that Ireland has a “secular government”. Put up or shut the fuck up on that claim. If you can’t shut up, your continued inane postings tell us all we need to know about your lack of honesty and integrity. Why can’t you just shut the fuck up? Answer that, and you will know why your word isn’t worth anything.

  150. nolajim says

    Orgvorbis: You seem to have difficulty understanding that influence and power are not the same thing. Please consult a dictionary.

  151. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    You seem to have difficulty understanding that influence and power are not the same thing.

    Why don’t you CITE the difference, and explain the reality of what makes them different at the end of the day. It doesn’t. So, shut the fuckup.

  152. Ogvorbis: ջարդված says

    When it comes to politics in a democracy, nolajim, influence is power.

    But, according to you, the RCC has no power but lots of influence. Please explain how that is possible.

  153. Ogvorbis: ջարդված says

    pow·er
       [pou-er] Show IPA
    noun
    . . . .
    4.
    the possession of control or command over others; authority; ascendancy: power over men’s minds.
    5.
    political ascendancy or control in the government of a country, state, etc.: They attained power by overthrowing the legal government.

    ===============

    in·flu·ence
       [in-floo-uhns] Show IPA noun, verb, in·flu·enced, in·flu·enc·ing.
    noun
    1.
    the capacity or power of persons or things to be a compelling force on or produce effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of others: He used family influence to get the contract.
    2.
    the action or process of producing effects on the actions, behavior, opinions, etc., of another or others: Her mother’s influence made her stay.

    . . . .
    5.
    the exercise of similar power by human beings. to exercise influence on; affect; sway: to influence a person.
    8.
    to move or impel (a person) to some action: Outside factors influenced her to resign.

    Do you really not see the close relationship here?

  154. says

    You seem to have difficulty understanding that influence and power are not the same thing.

    And you need to understand that when people copy & paste parts of your comments and blockquote them, they are not putting words in your mouth.
    How is it that you don’t recognize your own commentary when it’s quoted back at you?

  155. Amphiox says

    Orgvorbis: You seem to have difficulty understanding that influence and power are not the same thing. Please consult a dictionary.

    And you need to realize that when you’re reduced to quibbling about the fine print in a dictionary, that means you’ve lost the argument.

    Quite a long time ago.

  156. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Nolajim is large, nolajim contains multitudes.

    That is why nolajim is able to not recognize the words that nolajim has typed out.

  157. Amphiox says

    Nerd of Redhead: Why do you keep putting words into my mouth?

    He’s BLOCKQUOTING you directly.

    He’s not putting words into your mouth. He’s taking the words RIGHT OUT OF YOUR MOUTH.

  158. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    nolajim:

    You seem to have difficulty understanding that influence and power are not the same thing. Please consult a dictionary.

    Oh no you didn’t!
    I know your fuckwitted ass did not just go there.

    You really have no fucking clue what you’re talking about do you?
    In the context of this discussion, yes, the influence of the Catholic Church on Ireland (and countries across the globe) constitutes a significant part of its power.

    ****
    [meta]
    I wonder how long before PZ gets tired of nolajim. How many pages did scottyroberts take up last time?

  159. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    nolajim @154:

    I don’t know if the mother’s life was at risk or not, and neither do you, since, as I’ve said, none of has the full medical facts

    Let me consult a dictionary real quick like…

    septicemia [sep″tĭ-se´me-ah]
    the presence of infective agents or their toxins in the bloodstream, popularly known as blood poisoning. It is characterized by elevated body temperature, chills, and weakness. Small abscesses may form on the surface of the body and red and blue streaks become apparent along the pathway of surface blood vessels leading to and from the site of the primary infection. A blood culture confirms the diagnosis and helps identify the most effective antiinfective drug for therapy. This is a serious condition that must be treated promptly; otherwise the process of infection leads to circulatory collapse, profound shock, and death.
    http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/septicemia

    She was showing signs of septicemia on the second day of her three days of torture. This is a life threatening disease if not treated promptly. It wasn’t treated promptly. She died of this because the doctors treated fucking Catholic rules as more important than her life.

  160. Ogvorbis: ջարդված says

    Tony:

    Interesting that xe challenged me to check definitions. I did. I even gave him the overlap in definitions. And xe disappeared.

    Depressing as all hell.

    Between this and the symphisiotomy thread, I am truly depressed. Like, almost in tears depressed. How the fuck can people defend this shit? Do they really think so little of women?

    Yeah. Those were rhetorical. Unfortunately, I know the answer.

    I’m heading for bed and I hope to hell that there are no dreams.

  161. Anri says

    nolajim:

    I don’t know if the mother’s life was at risk or not, and neither do you, since, as I’ve said, none of has the full medical facts.

    May I ask, how much deader would she have to be now for you to be convinced her life was at risk?
    Or are you of the opinion that people often die of non life-threatening things?

    I have confidence that you are right, the church will, as you say, “fight tooth and nail to prevent any headway in the secular battle for women’s rights.” They deserve to be confronted about that.

    …but you said earlier that it was pointless to confront the church, as we would never convince them and they would never change (I can go find the exact quote if you refuse to admit to the statement).
    So, which is it again?

    nolajim’s epitaph: killed by deranged blogging sharks in a feeding frenzy. His crime: daring to suggest that small changes in existing law are best handled as a secular issue instead of a religious one. His accusers: a bunch of church-hating, neurotic obsessives who think there is a Cardinal in every closet and a priest in every Pantry.

    Oh, get down off of the cross, someone else needs the Popsicle sticks.

  162. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Nolajim, if you don’t want your words used against you, don’t post them in the first place. That is the only way you won’t eat your weasel words.

  163. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    gobi’s sockpuppet’s meatpuppet:

    Guys, I have read every. single. comment. here.

    I feel for you.
    I hope you had a strong adult beverage to compensate for all the facepalming you likely did.

  164. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    Janine @190:

    Nolajim is large, nolajim contains multitudes.

    Isn’t that what people say about the Yahweh?
    I guess nolajim was made in god’s image.

  165. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    I’ll second the befuddlement at nolajim not realizing how easy it is to search through the last page and a half to find the exact statements he made that he’s now contradicting.

  166. says

    In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?

  167. FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker) says

    That befuddlement is another data point in the great debate: is nolajim a liar for Jeebuz or a garden variety idiot? A point in favour of the godbotherer hypothesis, I should add.

    You see, that’s what they do, form a conclusion and ignore or distort anything that contradicts said conclusion. Even if that contradiction comes from their own words.

  168. gobi's sockpuppet's meatpuppet says

    I hope you had a strong adult beverage to compensate for all the facepalming you likely did.

    Glad i didn’t – the last thing i need right now is a depressant. Though it would have deadened the pain of my face palms…

  169. gobi's sockpuppet's meatpuppet says

    I normally could not stay the pace for this many comments but this thread was like some bizarre semantic car crash that you cant take your eyes off.

    Good work to all those who fought such tenacious idiocy.

  170. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    FossilFishy:

    That befuddlement is another data point in the great debate: is nolajim a liar for Jeebuz or a garden variety idiot?

    I’m astonished.
    Astonished I tell you.
    That you would employ such binary thinking.

    nolajim could very well be an idiotic liar for GeeSus.

  171. says

    I don’t know if the mother’s life was at risk or not, and neither do you, since, as I’ve said, none of has the full medical facts.

    I guess shejust dropped dead out of spite.
    Fucking idiot, the fact that she died should be sufficient evidence that her life was at risk.

    The fact that the fetus had a heartbeat doesn’t change whether or not the mother’s life was at risk.

    You almost had it here, you almost had it.

    But it changes the legal question the doctor’s were faced with.

    And then yu lost it again.

  172. Maureen Brian says

    Should you wake up again and be daft enough to return to this discussion, nolajim, you have questions to answer. You do not need to wait for reports: you have quite enough information now.

    1. When the admitting doctor noted that the pregnancy had failed and that nothing could save the 17-week foetus, why was future action not based upon that established fact? Or on a second opinion confirming it?

    2. Given the millennia-long history of women dying of septicaemia after both birth and incomplete spontaneous abortion, why was this woman not put on antibiotics immediately?

    3. Given that she was in considerable pain, why was she not given adequate analgesics?

    4. If the heartbeat of the dying foetus was so damned important, why was she not on a foetal heart monitor but only checked a few times a day?

    5. Does the Roman Catholic Church have some teaching against preventive medicine, pain relief and the acknowledgement of hard medical fact?

    6. If Enda Kenny – who was good when he berated the RCC for giving child abuse inquiries the runaround – should suddenly discover that he also has the backbone to deal with this, can you guarantee that the church and its agents will do nothing underhand but will rely upon evidence and honest, open debate on proposed legislation?

    You have an opinion – several opinions, sometimes – on everything else. I’m sure you can manage these six.

  173. Rodney Nelson says

    Father nolajim,

    If you are the only one making various assertions and everyone else is disagreeing, there is a distinct possibility that we’re not the ones who are wrong.

  174. No Light says

    I don’t know if the mother’s life was at risk or not, and neither do you, since, as I’ve said, none of has the full medical facts.

    Yeah, so hard to discern whether a fucking DEAD WOMAN might have been at risk of dying…

    Righto. A repeat of my earlier biology lesson, for Jim4Jebus.

    The uterine cavity is a sterile space. If bacteria get through the cervix then you’re in deep shit.

    Women who contract chlamydia from their partners are often asymptomatic, until they start to get horrible pelvic pain. Pelvic inflammatory disease, occurring because the sterile uterine cavity has been breached, has roughly the same effect as pumping battery acid into the uterus and fallopian tubes. It causes pain (that can last forever), scarring, and infertility.

    During pregnancy a thick plug of mucus forms to block the uterus off from the outside world. This plug coming loose is typically the first sign of imminent labour, because it means the cervix is starting to dilate.

    When women talk of their “waters breaking”, that means the amniotic sac has ruptured, the amniotic fluid drains out, and birth is imminent. No fluid = no foetal viability if labour doesn’t start, or spontaneous abortion doesn’t complete.

    A fully dilated cervix (so it’s 10 centimetres wide) is a great way to introduce bacteria to the uterus. That’s why midwives scrub, and glove up, when performing checks during labour, because it’s essentially a huge open wound.

    The amniotic sac offers a little protection, but as you’ve seen in reports, Savita was leaking amniotic fluid, so the sac was clearly ruptured.

    Someone fully dilated at that stage of pregnancy, in pain, and leaking fluid? She has virtually zero chance of completing the pregnancy. Quick intervention to remove the products of conception from the uterus, coupled with antibiotics, is the absolute standard of care.

    Now back to the anatomical issues. When women menstruate, or we give birth, our cervix sits very low down, sometimes it can actually be seen very close to the vestibule, the entrance to the vagina.

    The anus is very close to the vagina. The anogenital area is an area teeming with bacteria. Vaginal flora, staphylococcus, foecal coliforms such as E. coli.

    It’s why women suffer higher rates of urinary tract infections than men. Bacteria can so easily migrate an inch or two, in the perfect warm, damp environment.

    A uti caused by e. coli. can fuck up the kidneys so quickly. It usually lives harmlessly enough in the gut, but if it gets anywhere else you’re in serious shit. Same goes for staph. It’s in your nose, skin folds like the armpits and groin, but if it gets into a space that’s supposed to be sterile? Bye bye! Especially if it’s a drug resistant strain, such as MRSA.

    So Savita has a gaping 10cm wound, in an area teeming with potentially deadly bacteria, leading directly to a huge portal to the bloodstream, the placenta.

    She was a medical professional, she knew all of this, she would have been terrified. Incomplete spontaneous abortion was the least of her worries. She could have conceived again, but multiple organ failure is a little trickier to overcome.

    So Jim, the only way to recreate this scenario in a way that might be easier to grasp for you, is to offer up the following scenario:

    A man is kidnapped by someone. He’s knocked unconscious, and when he wakes up he finds a note. It tells him that his belly has been sliced open, and a dead foetal piglet has been placed in his abdominal cavity.

    The piglet has traces of faeces (uh-oh, e. coli.!) and nasal mucus (shit, staph!) on it, because whoever operated on him did not follow sterile protocols. He’d been to the toilet without washing his hands, just before the experiment, and during it he wiped his nose with the back of his hand.

    The note goes on to tell the guinea pig that he has been sewn back up, and that he is free to go.

    Guinea pig (GP) already feels flushed. The incision on his abdomen is angry and red, his belly is hot to the touch. He needs help, NOW.

    He staggers outside and collapses. He wakes up in the emergency dept. of the local hospital. He tells them about the tiny piglet, how it’s inside him, and it needs to get out or he’ll die.

    The doctors act like he’s insane. When he reacts violently to their derision he’s quickly given 10mg of haloperidol, and loses consciousness.

    He wakes up in the psych unit, he’s on an involuntary three day hold because he’s convinced there’s a rotting pig foetus in his belly. It’s put down to florid delusion, the cut on his belly is assumed to be self-inflicted.

    He’s in agony. Feverish, sweating, agonising stomach and back pain. The wound is really hot to the touch, these are red lines tracking away from it, and it’s oozing pus. He needs to be in theatre, not a padded room!

    He gets angry and screams about the piglet. The on-call psych increases the strength of the anti-psychotics, and writes GP up for a sedative, to be administered whenever he becomes agitated.

    GP is in serious trouble. He’s vomiting, shaking, and has diarrhoea. His urine is bright red. He’s hallucinating frequently, and attempting to move makes him feel like he’s being ripped apart.

    GP knows he’s dying, he used to be a nurse, and knows sepsis when he sees it.

    On day three the incision on his belly splits. Pus and blood pour out, and staff are horrified to see what looks like the remains of a pig foetus. GP wasn’t delusional or a liar! They rush him to theatre, flush out the abdominal cavity, but it’s too late. He’s gone into DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation, where the body sends blood clots to the shoulders and groin in order to kill the limbs, and reduce strain on the heart.

    There’s no kidney output, his intestines are gangrenous, and he’s having constant seizures due to his raised intracranial pressure.

    He’s fucked. If only they’d given him a chance, scanned his belly when he presented in the ED and then surgically removed the foreign body, washed out his abdomen, sewn him up and pumped him full of antibiotics.

    Would you say that his life was in danger the minute his abdominal cavity was breached by whoever wanted to hurt him? Or, was watchful waiting the right choice? Could the situation have resolved spontaneously?

    The answers are Yes, no, not in a million years.

    Was Savita in danger from the minute she was leaking amniotic fluid at 17 weeks gestation, and fully dilated? Was watchful waiting an appropriate choice to make? Could the situation have resolved spontaneously?

    Yes, no, not in a million years.

    A young woman is dead, and you’re regurgitating masturbatory paeans to the RCC, and babbling about subjects, medical and political both, that you appear totally ignorant of.

    You stamp and pout when your OWN ACTUAL WORDS are quoted back at you. You act like people are too stupid to ctrl+f “Nolajim” and see exactly what putrid bile you’ve spewed.

    You’re a colossal waste of bandwidth, who seems to revel in his own ignorance and pigheadedness.

    That Savita, an educated, driven woman, is dead, while you live on to play hyperskeptic over her death, is truly tragic.

  175. Amphiox says

    I don’t know if the mother’s life was at risk or not, and neither do you, since, as I’ve said, none of has the full medical facts.

    Right. Like we don’t know if there is climate change or not, since none of us have the full climate facts.

    We have ENOUGH facts to know that YES the mother’s life was at risk, from day one. Perhaps not “imminent” depending on how you want to weasel around the definition of that word on day one but definitely “imminent” by day two.

    We’ve got the bullet. We’ve got the entry and exit wound in the victim’s skull. We have the smoking gun, and the fingerprints of the culprit, and the striation match for the bullet. But we don’t know if the killer used the gangster or regular grip when he pulled the trigger. Thus, by your logic, we don’t know for sure if he’s the killer because we don’t have the full set of facts.

  176. says

    Thus, by your logic, we don’t know for sure if he’s the killer because we don’t have the full set of facts.

    Even less, we don’t even know if the bullet endangered the victims life.
    I ask you, has hir life in danger when the bullet was 10cm from the skull?
    Was the life in danger when the bullet hurt the skin?

    Clarly not, an abrasion on the skin isn’t lethal. Therefore you cannot conclude that the innocent person who pulled the trigger could have forseen the death of that person just because there would be a skin abrasion and you cannot hold the fact that the other person is dead now as evidence against hir

  177. nolajim says

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1116/1224326668071.html?via=rel?via=rel

    The Irish Times – Friday, November 16, 2012

    JOE HUMPHREYS

    Staff and users of University Hospital Galway were keen to dismiss suggestions yesterday of any Catholic ethos influencing treatment decisions.

    As the controversy around the death of Savita Halappanavar continued, sources close to the hospital stressed that not only was there “no particular ethos” at the hospital but it was very well resourced with a high level of specialist care.

    “This is why it’s such a shock,” said Cllr Catherine Connolly (Ind), a member of the HSE West’s regional health forum.

    “As someone born and reared in Galway, I can say it [a Catholic ethos] never came to my attention. There is a huge waiting list and there is a big issue around cutbacks but once you get into the hospital the treatment is second to none.”

    Cllr Michael Crowe (FF), also a member of the HSE forum, said the hospital operated on the basis of “patient first”.

    “My belief is if there’s any threat to life, regardless of the context, the medical people would protect the patient. There is no other issue at play. I can say that as a patient, a visitor, and a member of the [forum],” he said.

    He added: “There is no doubt it’s a shocking case . . . There is the loss of the young lady in question but there are also the doctors who treated her: they lost a person in their professional duty and they are in my mind too.”

  178. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Nolajim, who gives a flying fuck what the paper says in cover your ass fashion? Who gives a shit what your OPINION is? We think for ourselves, and form our own opinions. Which is you and your paper are full of shit. Take a long walk off a short pier.

  179. nolajim says

    Nerd: it sems that the further you are backed into a corner, the more you stoop to mere name calling, and less you seem able to address the facts. I have cited reliable sources.

  180. nolajim says

    I can see no point at all in No Light (above) analyzing the medical situation yet again. It isn’t just me that is saying that there was a legal ambiguity here, its the Irish Institute of Ob and Gyn. Maybe you should take it up with them. A HUGE part of the problem here is the thick-witted insistence of this group to ignore the legal framework as it exists in Ireland. This is not just a question of medical standards (I wish it were).

  181. nolajim says

    Beatrice: what I gave is an example of local assessment of the influence of Catholic theology on the operation of the hospital, not a glowing report of how nice it is. That assessment is not mine. It is the assessment of local who may or may not be objective, but who actually know what goes on there, unlike 99% of the people mouthing off here.

  182. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Nerd: it sems that the further you are backed into a corner, the more you stoop to mere name calling, and less you seem able to address the facts. I have cited reliable sources.

    No, I’m just pointing out phone calls could have been made and pressure put on. As anybody who has lived for a while understands. Until it is shown that didn’t occur, it did.

    A HUGE part of the problem here is the thick-witted insistence of this group to ignore the legal framework as it exists in Ireland.

    We acknowledge all that. Why don’t you just shut the fuck up unless you have something new to add. Which you have never added to the debate. Just your insistence that we accept your self-refuting authority as gospel…and the contradictions is why you aren’t listened to at all.

  183. Beatrice says

    nolajim

    The woman comes into the hospital with a health threatening condition, it develops into a life threatening condition. Doctors refuse to treat it.

    As medical professionals on this very thread have explained multiple times, any half-arsed doctor would have seen that she was going to die without treatment. And yet doctors refused to treat her.

    You are still full of shit. I don’t care how wonderful the hospital is, and how the employees claim their standard of care is very high. It wasn’t in this case, and it doesn’t look like a freak tragedy, but a very preventable tragedy caused by human callousness. That kinda refutes the notion about high standards of the hospital.

  184. says

    Staff and users of University Hospital Galway were keen to dismiss suggestions yesterday of any Catholic ethos influencing treatment decisions.

    The dead bitch and her husband must be lying

    It isn’t just me that is saying that there was a legal ambiguity here, its the Irish Institute of Ob and Gyn.

    If the ding-dong-the-bitch-is-dead brigade could at least agree on whether there is a legal ambiguity that could have let to the staff not daring to act (and apparently not daring to contact a lawyer in all that time either or get legal advice. It’s not, as Nolajim assures us all the time, that the decission had to be made as soon as she entered the hospital) or whether it is already clearly allowed to induce birth or do a D&E to save the woman’s life as the other half wants us to believe.
    They’re only sure in one thing an that is that we mustn’t be mean to the poor katlick church.

  185. gobi's sockpuppet's meatpuppet says

    unlike 99% of the people mouthing off here

    - nolajim

    You mean like this drivel? :-

    nolajim’s epitaph: killed by deranged blogging sharks in a feeding frenzy. His crime: daring to suggest that small changes in existing law are best handled as a secular issue instead of a religious one. His accusers: a bunch of church-hating, neurotic obsessives who think there is a Cardinal in every closet and a priest in every Pantry.

    - nolajim

    You really are a pathetic creature aren’t you?

    Stop trying to pretend that you have even a shred of empathy or even a tiny sense of moral justice – you are here to troll and to argue.

    People way smarter than you have demolished your arguments but here you still are, stomping around with the same self righteous pomp, using the tragic death of a woman to put a notch on nolajim’s argument lunchbox.

    You are pretty fucking sick excuse for a humane being.

  186. says

    “My belief is if there’s any threat to life, regardless of the context, the medical people would protect the patient. There is no other issue at play. I can say that as a patient, a visitor, and a member of the [forum],” he said.

    The evidence shows that person’s belief to be incorrect. Now if we can have less magical thinking and more reality from the people in Galway, we may get somewhere with this. Like, have a functioning health system in Ireland, where rogue Catholic nutjobs are not in positions to make decisions for vulnerable ill people.

  187. Amphiox says

    nolajim continues to perseverate mindlessly on the irrelevant question on legal ambiguity. If nolajim had actually read this post from beginning to end it would have seen that part of the issue discussed and settled within the very first 50-100 posts on this thread.

    The ambiguity of the law is IRRELEVANT to the question of the doctors’ overall conduct in this case. It may have been relevant in the first 12 hours, it ceased to be relevant after that. Because it is the doctors’ professional obligation to clarify for themselves the legal ambiguity in a timely fashion when such potential ambiguity impacts the care of their patient. Timely means BEFORE a potential threat to life becomes imminent. They had 24h at least to do this, and ample resources at their disposal to do this. They did NOT. And that is where they FAILED.

  188. Ogvorbis: ջարդված says

    Why is the law ambiguous? Because of the influence, or power, of the Catholic Church withing the politics of Ireland.

  189. dianne says

    Nolajim’s got a small part of a point when s/he points out that we don’t have access to the medical records. It’s within the realm of possibility that the medical personnel acted better than we think right now. However, it’s also possible-and far more likely-that they acted far worse. I can see half a dozen mistakes that were made just from the little information given in the newspaper articles. More can be inferred. Probably far more would be found in the chart on review, if the review were performed honestly. I’ve seen people who made far lesser and less malicious errors have their careers ended due to their mistakes. No one involved in this case should continue to practice.

  190. Amphiox says

    Just to summarize the case again for nolajim’s benefit:

    1. The patient presented in a situation with clear potential threat to life and a easily predicted high likelihood of progressing soon to imminent threat to life.

    2. The patient was allowed to progress from potential threat to life to imminent threat to life without intervention.

    3. The situation with imminent threat to life was still not treated, until the situation became so severe as to be irreversible. Treatment was finally initiated but by then it was too late.

    4. It is a doctor’s PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY to be fully aware and informed of what the law says pertaining to all aspects of the care of his or her patient.

    At step 1, it was the doctors’ PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY to recognize the potential threat to life and possibility of progression to imminent threat to life, and PREPARE ACCORDINGLY. Such preparation means ANTICIPATING the possibility of a legally ambiguous situation arising and obtaining the appropriate legal consultation, and hospitals have legal departments standing by for precisely these kinds of situations.

    By allowing 1 to progress to 2 without intervening, these doctors FAILED. If they did not recognize the potential threat to life, they failed. If they did not anticipate the risk of progression to imminent threat to life, they failed. If they did recognize this but did not act because of ambiguity in the law then they failed in not seeking clarification of the law from their hospital’s legal department in a timely fashion. If they did not seek such clarification because they thought they already understood the law then they still failed as their understanding of the law proved erroneous.

    And if they did seek and obtain timely legal clarification, and even after all that the law was still ambiguous in their minds, they failed at step 2, because it was their professional obligation to, in situations of ambiguity, act in such a way as to err on the side of the wellbeing of their patient.

    So no matter how you slice it, they FAILED.

    The only situation in which the doctors do not deserve blame is if the law was UNAMBIGUOUS and flat out forbid them from acting. And even in this case, it is a physician’s professional obligation to ADVOCATE for his or her patients in situations where social and legal circumstances adversely impact those patients’ health outcomes. Even if the law flag forbid them from acting (which it did not) they should have been publicly speaking out about it immediately when the potential threat to life was recognized, and seeking any and all legal avenues to obtain an exemption from that law.

  191. paleotrent says

    I don’t think I’m going to read these comments anymore. There is too much of a hive mentality and a quick rush to judgment among a sizable segment of you that I find completely disheartening. I’ll continue to read the blog, because I do enjoy PZ’s take on things, but I don’t think I’m ever coming to a comment section again.

  192. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    I’ll continue to read the blog, because I do enjoy PZ’s take on things, but I don’t think I’m ever coming to a comment section again.

    Gee another concern troll heavy on opinion, short on facts. You won’t be missed. But the real question is why do you even bother to post such stuff, instead of just lurking?

  193. Amphiox says

    It is so fascinating to observe people like paleotrent rushing to judgment about other people “rushing” to judgment.

  194. rr says

    nolajim:

    A HUGE part of the problem here…

    The problem isn’t here, it’s at every church and religous school around the globe: lies masquerading as truth, life made cheap and disposable by the followers of imaginary gods.

  195. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Be reasonable, people. There MUST be a damned good reason why professional medical personnel would allow a healthy young woman to die a painful death.

  196. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Ing, I have seen the moniker of paleotrent here before. I doubt that it is a sock puppet. Just a concern troll who hates the rash reactions to a sense death and how everyone ganged up on nolajim’s reasonable protests.

    It smells but not of socks.

  197. dianne says

    There MUST be a damned good reason why professional medical personnel would allow a healthy young woman to die a painful death.

    A “good” reason known as their egos. They’d just declared abortion unnecessary and weren’t going to let a little fact like a woman dying of sepsis after an incomplete miscarriage get in the way of their theory being correct.

  198. Forelle says

    From an AI report, here’s another example of the Catholic Church wielding its influence:

    Elections in November 2006 returned Daniel Ortega, leader of the Sandinista National Liberation Front (Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional, FSLN), to power after some 16 years in opposition.

    . . .

    The close-run elections ensured that candidates were particularly responsive to the demands of various interest groups. It was in this context that the two major parties took up the call by leading members of the Roman Catholic Church in Nicaragua and some Christian groups to impose a complete ban on abortion. . . .

    On 6 October 2006 the Catholic Church led a large procession to the National Assembly, calling on parliament to remove the penal code provisions exempting therapeutic abortion from punishment. Religious groups opposed to retaining therapeutic abortion as a legal option carried out a far-reaching publicity campaign, using television advertisements, leaflets and inserts in newspapers. The campaign materials did not use accurate medical evidence or refer to the impact the ban would have on the provision of life-saving medical treatment or on women and girls who become pregnant as a result of rape or incest. Arguing that every abortion is unjustified, the materials failed to acknowledge that access to safe abortion in certain circumstances is necessary to save women’s lives and safeguard their health. Examples of the kind of emotive and misleading nature of much of the publicity included composite pictures containing graphic images of mutilated foetuses and digitally manipulated photographs of members of women’s rights groups with “blood” spattered over them.

    The publicity campaign also targeted the medical profession. Manipulated photos showing doctors wearing masks beside figures of medieval witches and skeletons were used in leaflets inserted into the main daily newspapers. The leaflets claimed that those doctors who supported legal access to therapeutic abortion were not to be trusted, and that their motivation was financial gain rather than the best interests of the patient. In one leaflet targeting the medical profession, one gynaecologist in particular was singled out and made the focus of defamatory remarks, accusing her of manipulating information given to the public in an attempt to “legalize the assassination of 36,000 babies every year in Nicaragua.”

    On the other hand, from the same source, certain groups didn’t want total prohibition:

    The following Nicaraguan associations of health care professionals signed a joint public statement warning against a complete prohibition: Nicaraguan Society of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Nicaraguan Society of General Medicine, Medical Faculty of the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN) León, Association of Gyno-Obstetricians, Radiographers of Nicaragua, Nicaraguan Association of General Surgery, Nicaraguan Association of Psychiatry, Centre for Health Studies and Investigations, Nicaraguan Public Health Association, Central American Association of Health Systems and Economy, Medical Faculty of the National Autonomous University of Nicaragua (UNAN) Managua, Nicaraguan Association of Orthopaedics and Trauma, Women Doctors’ Foundation, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Association, Nicaraguan Association of Laparoscopic Surgery, Nicaraguan Dermatology Association, Nicaraguan Infectious Diseases Association, León Association of Gyno- Obstetricians, Nicaraguan Urology Association, Nicaraguan Cardiology Association, Nicaraguan College of Nurses and the Nicaraguan Internal Medicine Association.

    We know which position swayed the MPs’ consciences.

    Of course the Catholic Church manipulates, intervenes and threatens. They’re obligated to be a bit subtler in Europe and other Western nations, only because they can’t impose themselves so easily — but if they could be as blunt, they would.

  199. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Forelle, there was a reason why the RCC cozied up to many of the non communist authoritarian governments in the twentieth and twentieth first centuries; it is easier to get it’s dogmas enacted into law.

  200. raven says

    There MUST be a damned good reason why professional medical personnel would allow a healthy young woman to die a painful death.

    Assertion without proof.

    It’s also wrong.

    We know what the reason is. We see it every day in one form or another. Xian atrocities are a near daily occurrence.

    Hitchens got it right long ago. Religion poisons everything.

  201. Janine: Hallucinating Liar says

    Raven, you should know me well enough to realize that was very bitter sarcasm.

    Some of the other regulars read it that way.

  202. Forelle says

    This is like poking at a sore tooth.

    Just when more than twenty representatives in the National Assembly are trying to convince their colleagues to pass a legislative proposal to decriminalize therapeutic abortion in extreme cases, the Nicaraguan Conference of Bishops published yesterday a pastoral letter where they encourage the population “not to be swayed by proposals from those who are still supporters of a culture of death.”

    At the end of the article, a bishop maintains that “it should be possible to save the two lives.”

  203. No Light says

    Hmm. I wonder why Irish CATHOLICS don’t detect a specifically CATHOLIC ethos in a CATHOLIC-staffed hospital, in a CATHOLIC country?

    I cannot think why. In other news today I, as a white person, believe that anti-black racism is a thing of the past. I mean, I’ve never witnessed any first-hand.

    JimmyNoBrains – If the lying, brown, dead bitches death had nothing to do with Catholicism, Catholic medical staff, or a catholic ethos at the hospital, then why was she told “We can’t. This is a catholic country”?

    Seriously, just fuck off. We know Savita’s life was at risk, because she’s fucking dead. That’s what matters, not your defence of the RCC, not your complete inability to listen to actual medical staff who post here, not your apparent belief that anything in the tabloid press is truthful and unbiased.

    You’re not a woman. You’ll never die because of a situation like this. You have no idea what it means to live in fear of your body and of the laws governing it.

  204. Forelle says

    Janine at 241: Yes, they’ll cozy up to anyone as long as they smell power. In this case, the sandinistas’ turn was a bitter disappointment for many — but I don’t mean to criticize Daniel Ortega here, just the odious Church.

    Actually, I’m not always sure that they care very much for their dogmas. They care for power. They want people afraid. They want them dead when that helps.

    Fuck. I had something else to say about Halappanavar’s case, but I’m so upset right now, I’ll better stop.

  205. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    nolajim@219:

    what I gave is an example of local assessment of the influence of Catholic theology on the operation of the hospital, not a glowing report of how nice it is.

    You gave an assessment from people deep in the heart of Catholic country who are primed to treat religion as a good thing and disinclined to blame religion for any problems (you do realize people around the world treat religion as if it’s a positive force and often don’t place blame on religious institutions, don’t you?) that arise in society. If these people were atheists, I still wouldn’t believe them as they likely wouldn’t know the religious viewpoints of all the staff involved in Savita’s death, nor would they know how much religion influenced the decision to let her die.
    The fact is that Savita was in a very religiously influenced region. The deep, pervasive influence of Catholicism has infected many of the people there and their decisions and actions are all too often going to be reflective of their “Catholic values”.

    It is the assessment of local who may or may not be objective, but who actually know what goes on there, unlike 99% of the people mouthing off here.

    It’s the assessment of someone with no knowledge of the extent of Catholic indoctrination. What, was this person psychic?

    How in the world have you found yourself posting on a blog where people place tremendous value on science, yet you bring a fucking anecdote to the table as “evidence” that you’re right?

  206. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    Ogvorbis:

    Why is the law ambiguous? Because of the influence, or power, of the Catholic Church withing the politics of Ireland

    Careful, don’t confuse nolajim by using influence and power synonymously.
    Me, I think it’s time to attack the Catholic Church.

  207. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    paleotrent @229:

    I don’t think I’m going to read these comments anymore

    PLEASE let the door hit you on the way out.

  208. Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– says

    Can someone define “hive mentality” for me?
    I’m having a hard time understanding how a bunch of people who have similar values who find themselves posting on the same thread about a situation they feel strongly about = hive mentality.
    What, are we supposed to all disagree just shits n giggles?
    We’re not supposed to be honest with ourselves, but rather lie to ourselves?

    Ok.

    I hereby renounce my criticism of the Catholic Church. I recant any statements that made it appear that the Raping Children Church was in any way responsible for the death of Savita.

    Does this mean we’re not a hivemind any longer?

  209. Ogvorbis: ջարդված says

    Me, I think it’s time to attack the Catholic Church.

    But xe already told us that was pointless because the RCC is powerless.

    Can someone define “hive mentality” for me?

    When one commenter stakes out a hopelessly untenable position (which keeps morphing) and multiple other commenters point out the untenability of said position and call the commenter of the first part out on contradictions and refusal to acknowledge reality, then the commenter of the first part is being subjected to hivemind mentality.

  210. Tony ∞ºQueer Duck Hivemind Minionº∞ says

    Ogvorbis:
    So it’s more than a bunch of people from around the world having similar value systems and commenting on a blog all at roughly the same time?

  211. Rodney Nelson says

    Tony #253

    We’re actually a secret society, sworn to disagree with nolajim whenever he materializes in the blogosphere. Let us know if you want to join and we’ll send you a decoder ring and a free copy of Conspiracies Я Us.

  212. Tony ∞ºQueer Duck Hivemind Minionº∞ says

    Rodney Nelson:
    Oh, I see your secret society entices people with free gifts.
    How very Obama like…

  213. No Light says

    I’m with Tony. That sounds like sociocommunofascism. Free stuff? Suspicious.

    Rutee – I’m in there.

  214. No Light says

    Caine – What can I say? Insomnia really stokes my creative rage centres!

    I’d only been asleep for two hours, and thought “I know, I’ll check my email” Bam. Fuse lit. Red mist of feminist rage descends, and grotesque pigsperIment is born.

    Thanks to Maureen too.

  215. says

    There is too much of a hive mentality and a quick rush to judgment among a sizable segment of you that I find completely disheartening.

    Several people agree that religion is evil and kills women. That fact convinces me that they are wrong, and millions of other people agree with me on that so that means I’m right.

    Did I get that right?

  216. dianne says

    Ready to be disgusted with humanity all over again? Check out a comment from this already strongly emetogenic post.

    The commenter, “Adam”, says, “we nonetheless need to teach is that there may be rare but difficult circumstances where we cannot save the mother’s life without directly and intentionally killing the child, which is murder. Again, IANA doctor, so I don’t know what circumstances those would be and whether modern technology has made those rare or impossible. Apparently they didn’t exist for St. Gianna Molla, who accepted death rather than aborting her child. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gianna_Beretta_Molla)

    How do we explain to the world that in some cases (even if not this one), you need to suck it up and prepare for an honorable death over an act of mortal sin? Particularly when the world doesn’t accept that the unborn child is human? I’d love to hear some answers on that one, but that’s the fight we’re facing.”

    In short, he is overtly admitting that he’s not even “pro-life” since he admits that the fetus can’t be saved. He’s simply pro-slavery. Anything to make a woman suffer, even if it’s entirely pointless.

  217. John Morales says

    The claim: “As the controversy around the death of Savita Halappanavar continued, sources close to the hospital stressed that not only was there “no particular ethos” at the hospital but it was very well resourced with a high level of specialist care.

    Their website:

    — begin extract —

    Spiritual Care

    Roman Catholics are offered Holy Communion daily and the Blessing of the Sick. Confession is available on request.

    University Hospital Galway –

    The hospital chapel at the UHG is located on the ground floor near to the new lifts.

    Mass Times – UHG
    Saturday Vigil 20:30
    Sunday 08:00 and 09:00
    Monday to Saturday 13:05

    There are hospital Chaplains who provide support for the Roman Catholic Church. The Chaplains or members of the Pastoral Care Team regularly visit the wards. The Chaplains will contact religious and spiritual groups for any patients of other faiths. If you would like to speak to any of the chaplains, please ask your nurse to contact them for you.

    The Rector of St. Nicholas’s Church, Galway, is the Church of Ireland Chaplain and may be contacted at 091-521914.

    There is a chapel in the hospital grounds and people are free to visit for private prayer. Pastoral care is available.

    — end extract —

  218. Tony ∞ºQueer Duck Hivemind Minionº∞ says

    But John, we know the teachings of the Catholic Church play no role in (nor have any influence in shaping) hospital policy or procedures. Nolajim says so. That makes it true.

  219. mesh says

    dianne@260

    Way to go, that really riled me up to the point where I had to delurk after many years just to /rage!

    So basically in that situation it’s a woman’s moral responsibility to kill herself. It won’t do a thing to change the situation, but apparently it’s her duty to compound a tragedy with a suicide for Jesus!

    “Particularly when the world doesn’t accept that the unborn child is human?”

    No, you’re right – I have no problem with the idea that women should be made to sacrifice themselves upon altars in the name of the Lard, I’m only pro-choice because I got all confused and somehow thought the fetus to be of pig DNA.

    It’s just rich how this whole situation has turned out this way where the apologists are desperately trying to draw attention from the Catholicism involved. Even if they could prove that the reasoning behind maintaining the ambiguity of this law (or even having it in the first place) had nothing to do with their superstitions and that the doctors only abstained from helping in this specific instance due to fretting over perceived legal duress this does nothing to change the fact that this is exactly the outcome that the Catholic Church fights for! They continue to lobby to outlaw abortion even in cases of medical necessity. Hell, just look at how the church responds to such cases – threatening excommunication! In one case a mother was considered more odious than her 9 year old daughter’s rapist because she decided to save her daughter’s life by having the ticking time bomb removed from her uterus rather than watch her die.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brazil-rocked-by-abortion-for-9yearold-rape-victim-1640165.html

    If the Catholic Church had their way we’d have [i]more[/i] women screaming in agony as they are left to die in hospitals. To behold a situation where the outcome leaves them ashamed and desperate to divert the blame belies their claimed monopoly on morality.

  220. Tony ∞ºQueer Duck Hivemind Minionº∞ says

    mesh:
    well said.
    Have you considered delurking more often? You’d fit in nicely here.

  221. mesh says

    Thanks! It just takes me awhile to write so when I do it’s usually at a site where I can better keep at the pace of the conversation. With the more volatile subjects here it often wouldn’t take too long after beginning typing for the conversation to either shift in a different direction or for others to basically say what I was going to, but with more amusing sarcasm and citations.

  222. dianne says

    And…my evil plan to draw lurkers out of the woodwork succeeds. BWAHAHAHA!

    The blog that comment was posted on has some sort of odd comment policy and I can’t figure out how to comment. If I could, I’d be tempted to tell Adam that I would only support his plan if he agreed to kill himself in an equally painful way the next time a woman was murdered by neglect in an Irish hospital. Think he’d agree? Yeah, I doubt it too.

  223. mesh says

    Too bad the logic would most likely be completely lost upon him. For Christians life has no inherent value, it’s just a test of eligibility for God’s eternal pampering. It’s why they hold martyrdom in such high esteem even when their death serves no purpose whatsoever. For people like Adam the fact that a Saint opted to die from her pregnancy is confirmation enough that forcing someone to die from their pregnancy is the right thing to do. It’s not about what’s best for the woman, it’s about scoring points with Jesus.