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?
ednaz:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:46 am
They tortured her.
psychodigger:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:47 am
I turned my back on the Catholic church many years ago, but (repeated) stories like this really make me want to turn around again an punch it squarely in the face. How can these sanctimonious twats even stand the reflection of their own horrible mugs in the mirror every morning?
docslacker:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:48 am
It wait didn’t happen just be because the poor womn went to a Catholic hospital, but because she had the misfortune to be pregnant in a Catholic country. THIS IS WHAT A THEOCRACY GETS YOU! She wasn’t catholic yet the rules of that religion were imposed to her. The heartbeat of a dying foetus was more important than the life of a woman. Ireland, rise up and get rid of these laws, of the influence of this decrepit body of prudish old men. It started with the reports of abuse in schools and orphanages, now finish it up.
ednaz:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:51 am
These assholes can’t even get their stories straight. Aren’t we supposed to get new “bodies” in heaven with no pain or frailties?
Fucking monsters.
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:58 am
This is heartbreaking. How could no one in that hospital do their fucking job?! That woman was dying. She was in agony, and they did NOTHING.
This is torture. This is pure evil. How can people still honestly say the Catholic Church is a good thing?
peterh:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:01 am
In which we find once again the clergy (all clergy) don’t know what the hell they’re talking about. And innocent people suffer thereby.
PZ Myers:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:01 am
Haven’t we all been asking that for years? This is just ONE CASE, one human being…but think of all the children raped, the AIDS cases spread by their refusal to allow contraceptives, the people kept in poverty because the church considers it holy (for others, not themselves), the women whose careers and happiness have been compromised because of the church’s obscene attitudes towards abortion, and it goes on and on.
toro:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:06 am
Horrifying, sickening.
Remember the excommunication of Margaret McBride?
I had a hard time believing that story, and I have even more difficulty believing this tragedy.
“Catholic News Service, Dec-9-2011: “Sister Margaret ‘met the requirements for reinstatement with the church and she is no longer excommunicated. She continues to be a member in good standing with the Sisters of Mercy and is a valued member of the St. Joseph’s executive team.’ ”
Oh, Margaret – you had the golden opportunity to get out and stay out of this evil cult.
JohnnieCanuck:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:07 am
She’s far from the first to die at their hands.
She probably won’t be the last, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be trying our best to make her the last.
Perhaps if the doctors involved and the administrators of the hospital were held criminally responsible for her death and sent to jail, things would change.
It would be nice to see the Bishops who are responsible for this policy included as well. They as much as admit their guilt.
dancaban:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:08 am
Just read this on the BBC website. It seems Irish politicians have swept the abortion issue under the carpet for years because women could come here to the UK for their abortion. Equal opprobrium for those do nothings methinks.
ImaginesABeach:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:10 am
It doesn’t change anything, but it does not appear that the hospital is a Catholic hospital. The article says “this is a Catholic country” and doesn’t say anything about University Hospital Galway, and the hospital’s website doesn’t seem to say it’s a Catholic hospital (although I suppose that could be something that is just taken for granted)? Regardless, another woman has died for someone else’s religion.
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:10 am
@Johnnie Canuck:
That’s right. This is murder. They did nothing to stop her from dying. Not first degree, but it’s certainly manslaughter.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:11 am
Pro life?
Fucking bastards.
The woman is dead. She died in pain and agony. Her husband and her family are mourning her. Where’s the “life” those people are in favour of? It’s gone, over and gone because they wouldn’t save her life with a simple medical procedure.
Makes me shake with rage.
Hello, people telling me they do so much good because they make people donate 4 billion $ for the poor?
STFU
Hello people telling me we should just respectfully work with them towards common goals?
STFU
docslacker:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:12 am
Oh, and let’s not forget the case of the 9 year old girl who was raped in Brazil. Her mother and the doctors who performed the abortion were excommunicated. The rapist? Nah. His crime wasn’t as serious.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brazil-rocked-by-abortion-for-9yearold-rape-victim-1640165.html
Bob Dowling:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:20 am
What’s the Irish equivalent of the UK’s General Medical Council? Surely the doctors should be struck off at least.
grumpyoldfart:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:21 am
Nothing will change. In a hundred years from now the same hospitals will be making the same decisions.
`
Maybe if the flock got up off their knees and withheld their tithes until the changes were made … but we all know that will never happen.
unbound:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:23 am
Absolutely horrifying, and absolutely consistent by the catholic hierarchy. The fetus is all the matters, the female is nothing more than a vessel for the fetus. No guilt for the catholic hierarchy as usual…
michaeld:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:26 am
Second the opinion of this is murder and people should be charged.
Prolife? give me a fucking break.
sgailebeairt:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:27 am
but the Christian West values women so highly!!
Avicenna:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:32 am
The ultimate joke? She isn’t eligible for “Catholic Heaven”.
Remember. Hindus don’t get to go to heaven… Not unless they recant.
gworroll:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:34 am
The pedophilia scandals seem to have shaken the hold of the Catholic Church on Ireland a bit.
The hold isn’t lying on the ground shattered for eternity like it should be, but at least it’s looser than it once was. I’ve seen the abortion issue and gay rights start working their way in to drive the wedge further lately.
Progress. Too slow, but progress nonetheless. Hopefully the day soon comes when the Catholic Church(among others) becomes little more than a philosophy club and stops trying to force their ways on everyone else. As old as people get in my family, I might actually stand a chance of seeing that day.
hexidecima:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:35 am
“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.”
AKA, we make up when and where our god wants free will and then we decide that women aren’t worthy of this god.
If bodies are “sacred”, this god sure descrates them at will.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:36 am
Could be. Remember Miss X?
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel):
November 14th, 2012 at 7:36 am
If that’s the case, why the fuck are these monsters running hospitals?
irisvanderpluym:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:37 am
@JohnnieCanuck
But, but, but RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!!!11!!!
Look at the epic hissy fit the bishops had because women can now get birth control without a co-pay, and just imagine the shrieking if we tried to stop them from letting women die. Gosh, you’d be impinging on their religious freedom, which is obviously an evil far worse than the torture and death of mere women.
It’s getting harder and harder not to spit at clergy.
Freodin:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:38 am
I don’t know enough about the medical situation involved to say anything about how her death was directly related to the refusal of a termination of pregnancy, so I would refrain from accusing these people of murder (or manslaughter or whatever appropriate judicial term).
But even if this poor woman had survived and recovered fully… for keeping her in torture for three days alone these creeps should be sued into poverty!
irisvanderpluym:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:38 am
@Audley
Money.
sonofrojblake:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:40 am
It’s appalling that these theocratic dictatorships still exist in the modern world. Oh, hang on… it’s not a dictatorship, it’s a democracy. With elections and stuff. We like democracies and the rule of law, don’t we? And by the law of that democracy, passed not by priests but by elected politicians, none of the medical staff did anything illegal – indeed, if they’d done the abortion they’d have broken the secular law of that country.
Until a majority of the population of that country get out from under the Catholic church, good luck getting that law changed. It’s just a shame this woman didn’t have the opportunity to do what most women in that country do, and use the national health service of the civilised country next door…
LykeX:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:41 am
Then why even have hospitals in the first place? Surely, by this standard, any medical intervention is a refusal to accept the will of god.
But, of course, that might impact the lives of people who aren’t women. Can’t have that.
Nepenthe:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:48 am
This isn’t even true. Since 1992 there’s been a “life of the mother” exception to the abortion ban. If there was ever a time when that criterion was fulfilled, this is it.
(Side note, apparently there was also a referendum on whether women could legally travel outside Ireland to obtain an abortion. Yes, travel restrictions on women put up to a vote a mere ten years ago. Sadly, since Halappanavar was actively dying, she was unable to travel to a civilized country to have decent medical care.)
rq:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:49 am
Freodin, I’m not too strong on my medical background, but body miscarrying = blood/dead tissues in body, which, if not removed = septicemia, which = a very deadly condition indeed. And to leave tissues festering inside someone for days? Hello? Not directly linked to her death?
It’s why the cut gangrenous limbs off, if it goes too far, and not just at the wrist where the wound is, but at the elbow, because the infection could have already spread that far.
It’s why they should have removed the dying tissue from her body immediately (if you have necrotizing fasciitis, for instance, you think the doctor would tell you to wait it out a few days because your arm is still technically alive?).
Please don’t call this not-murder, unless you’re going for manslaughter. And still, if the doctors (they’re doctors) could see where this was going, and I have no doubt that they must have had some small idea, they should have done everything possible to save her life, because isn’t that the point of medicine?
But no. Fetal heartbeat. And now you have another dead woman whose doctors forgot all about the hippocratic oath.
Yeah. Not murder?
My.
Ass.
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:49 am
So, basically, “We let her die because we Catholics believe that humans are slaves who don’t have a right to control our own bodies, and yet have a right to impose that standard on others who don’t believe like that, and that this is completely innocuous, noble, harmless belief, even when we are talking about how we just killed a woman.”
The Catholics sure have a funny way of saying “I’m sorry”.
kieran:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:52 am
http://www.nwci.ie/takeaction/legislate-for-x/ If you are from Ireland feel free to use this to email all the TD’s in your constituency.
For those outside of Ireland [email protected] is the Taoiseach’s email address
Beatrice:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:57 am
Disgusting.
Doctors that refused to induce abortion until the fetus was dead, after more then two days of agony for the woman, should have their licenses taken away.
drdale:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:08 am
Then why the fuck should there even be a hospital? Do they never do surgery, inject something into a body? How is this any different? It is still mutilation of a human body.
theophontes (坏蛋):
November 14th, 2012 at 8:08 am
Really horrible. I just read it on the BBC (link here), itself an overly pro-catholic organisation.
Was Savita even a member of that sordid church? Why should that creepy deathcult be allowed to force itself into the secular realm? Fucking .
Christoph Burschka:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:11 am
And now they’re being charged with murder, I hope?
Right?
theophontes (坏蛋):
November 14th, 2012 at 8:12 am
™ aborts something like 25% to 30% of pregnancies as a matter of course. Is the fucking still in denial of this?
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:13 am
Why do Catholics have hospitals if they think that we can’t do what we want with our bodies? I think it is pretty obvious: We don’t have control over bodies in cases where
the priestsGod would disapprove. Whenthe priestsGod does approve of how we treat the bodies that he is renting to us, then everything is just fine and dandy. What are the things that God approves or disapproves of? Well, the faithful know it when they see it.ChasCPeterson:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:17 am
The implied insult to toads is totally uncalled for.
dianne:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:20 am
I don’t know enough about the medical situation involved to say anything about how her death was directly related to the refusal of a termination of pregnancy, so I would refrain from accusing these people of murder (or manslaughter or whatever appropriate judicial term).
I do. This outcome was 100% predictable. The doctors knew when she came in that the fetus had no chance whatsoever of surviving to term. They also knew that the sterile space had been breached and bacteria were entering. They also knew-if they didn’t sleep through medical school AND residency entirely-that dead and dying tissue is a wonderful culture medium and that you can’t cure the infection without removing the source. They only even started her on antibiotics midway through the whole event. They should at least have had her on antibiotics to give her body a chance to keep up with the raging infection that was destroying it.
At the very, very least, this is what should be career ending malpractice for everyone involved. Even if they weren’t willing to do the termination, she should have been on antibiotics from the very beginning, should have been in the ICU from the start, should have had MUCH closer monitoring so that they could do the termination the second the fetal heartbeat stopped.
If it were me, I’d just lie. Document that the fetal heart tones were nil whether they were or not. Lying less of a sin than murder, right? But if they weren’t willing to do that for whatever reason, they should at least have taken this seriously. I wonder how much racism, sexism, and anti-Hindu sentiment played into their decision to ignore a dying patient.
joed:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:20 am
First words I taught my parrot, Cap’in Jack, was “Fuck The Pope”.
Me grandmother said she did not vote for JFK because the Pope would be running the country if JFK won. This was a great lesson.
Goddamn, when is human race gonna’ grow up and start using its brain.
DaveL:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:21 am
Which reveals the inadequacy of such exceptions. It is a monstrous thing to wait until a woman goes septic before you’ll allow an abortion, out of fear that some sluts might otherwise go unpunished.
kevinalexander:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:21 am
What’s wrong with you people?
Don’t you understand that that woman’s suffering was a precious gift from JESUS?
Don’t you get that the hospital staff gathered ’round her bed to bask in the glory of HIS GLORIOUS MIRACLE!!??
Right now that woman (but not her unshriven baby) is at the right had of her CREATOR
Unless, of course, in her agony she forgot to ask a merciful God for forgiveness for her sluttish ways in which case her torment will go on forever to the delight of the staff at the hospital.
irisvanderpluym:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:25 am
anteprepro:
They’re not sorry. They’re not even pretending to be sorry. It’s truly grotesque.
drdale:
No no no. You’ve got it all wrong. It’s a woman’s body. Not “human,” and therefore not deserving of life. Only men and fetal tissue are properly classified as human.
dianne:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:26 am
It is a monstrous thing to wait until a woman goes septic before you’ll allow an abortion,
She was septic for at least a day before they did the abortion. Not that I disagree with your sentiment, of course.
Gregory in Seattle:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:28 am
Yet another example of how religion leads to pointless suffering and death.
Vicki:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:30 am
So, bodies are “sacred” and “temples of the holy spirit” and therefore the doctors insisted that this woman—this woman’s body—must not get the treatment she needed?! Bodies are “sacred,” and therefore must be destroyed by bacteria, when they could be saved by medical treatment?
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:32 am
When a highly religious Protestant is in office, are there many people lamenting that the President’s pastor is the one really running the country? Is a theocratic Protestant less theocratic than a Catholic because their religion doesn’t have a figurehead? I think that the double standards on this one are pretty damn clear. But seeing as how the complaint comes from a heavily Protestant country, that should be unsurprising.
Also: men or non-pregnant women in vegetative states.
(And, on rare occasion, those women that are not like those OTHER women and who are permitted by the wise male authorities to be exceptions to the rules that the rest of those inferior, amoral creatures are held to. Usually granted to women who vote Republican hard enough)
birgerjohansson:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:32 am
Being a Scandinavian, I would recommend a more pragmatic, viking-style approach to churches and cathedrals full of silver. The Vatican? Lots of nice, burnable wood and textiles (after I get first dibs on the expensive books and paintings).
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:35 am
Catholics: “Our bodies are temples. And seriously, fuck temples.”
Gregory in Seattle:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:35 am
Would the woman’s family have a case under Irish law for negligent homicide, or a civil case for wrongful death? Can the medical staff involved be thrown out of practice for failing to uphold the Hippocratic Oath?
dianne:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:37 am
Lots of nice, burnable wood and textiles
That would be a waste and produce greenhouse gasses. What’s wrong with seizing them for unpaid back taxes, selling it off, and donating the proceeds to help treat HIV in Africa (where many people were infected due to Catholic propaganda), provide help for women who were denied abortion and therefore live in poverty or have mental health problems due to having their babies kidnapped at birth, and compensate children who were raped by priests?
dianne:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:42 am
Would the woman’s family have a case under Irish law for negligent homicide, or a civil case for wrongful death?
Since it’s illegal to perform an abortion on a living fetus in Ireland, probably not. They probably do have a case for malpractice if they can demonstrate that there was delay in treating the sepsis (which, if the article is correct, there was.)
Normally I would be sympathetic to the medical personnel in this case: they are caught in a double bind situation where they either have to watch a patient die or break the law. But it doesn’t look to me like they tried their best given the circumstances. The doctors in AZ did better–though admittedly they had more backup and fewer legal issues.
Amphiox:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:45 am
Re rq and others;
At the time she was refused the abortion, when there were still fetal heart tones, she was not septicemic and her life was not in imminent danger. Sure there was an increased risk of septicemia from waiting, but it was not certain. I would imagine that once septicemia did set in, she was put on antibiotics, but sometimes that just doesn’t work. Sometimes if you wait until there is imminent danger it is too late.
That’s why these life-of-the-woman exceptions are actually close to useless. The medical intervention often needs to be made before one gets to that point.
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:45 am
wait, what?
are you saying what I think you’re saying here? that you think this person’s complaints about the catholic church are because they are PROTESTANT?
please, tell me you didn’t say that.
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:47 am
Sure there was an increased risk of septicemia from waiting, but it was not certain.
in a statistical sense, you mean?
because I’d be betting the chances were really quite high.
certainly high enough not to risk it.
Gregory in Seattle:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:47 am
@dianne #54 – Ah, I didn’t realize that abortion was still illegal in any first world countries.
In that case, I would petition the government itself and accuse them of murder: their laws did, after all, condemn an innocent woman to death without due process.
Tsu Dho Nimh:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:48 am
@26 … At 17 weeks the fetus had zero chance of surviving a C-section or induced labor. Amniotic fluid was leaking out, and the chances of keeping infection at bay until the fetus reached 24 weeks is basically zero.
The medically best procedure for this situation is to do an immediate D&C (yes, this will destroy the fetus**, but it’s doomed anyway) and start administering antibiotics and pitocin. Save the woman, try to save her ability to get pregnant again, get her through the experience as humanely as possible.
** The pathology lab photos of fetal remains after cases like this are probably the source of the gory photos waved around by the shock jocks of the “pro-life” forces.
*** We sent the remains to a local funeral home for cremation, or returned them to the parents for burial.
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:50 am
@dianne #54 – Ah, I didn’t realize that abortion was still illegal in any first world countries.
interestingly enough, it’s technically illegal here in New Zealand as well.
yet, EVERYONE from the top of government on down realizes the law is just salad dressing (why it’s even there is another point of contention), and getting an abortion here is quick, painless, available at hospitals and medical clinics, and covered under national health care.
Ireland could learn from New Zealand.
Amethyst Starling:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:51 am
Unfortunately, none of this surprises me. They are a horrid institution, who look out only for themselves. It truly is disgusting. I can add another item to the list that includes AIDS, abuse, death, etc., that the Catholic church repeatedly fails on. A few days ago, my parents, who have not attended Catholic church regularly for about ten years (my dad never went, and my mom now only goes for weddings), received a letter from the Archdiocese of Philadelphia asking for money because they need it. It actually said to help them out after all of the help the Catholic church has done for my parents and their family. I wish people would open their eyes to see this horrible institution for what it truly is. You are expected to tithe, (my old grade school even gave out church collection envelopes to kids, because we were expected to tithe our allowance), even if you are dirt poor, because somehow it will come back to you. Keep giving them money so the priests can buy the Cadillacs and Lincolns (I’m not kidding, my grade school priests all that these, Cadillac being the most prominent), and vacation houses on the Jersey Shore (I know this because I went to one of their houses down there for a school activity). The Catholic church (as is all churches) the epitome of the “Seven Deadly Sins”.
Amphiox:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:51 am
@52;
The Hippocratic Oath is historic only. Modern physicians do not take it. Instead they take modernized oaths that are based on the Hippocratic one but are unique to individual jurisdictions. Since Ireland has always outlawed abortions the local oath probably has something that covers it. They may even be required to swear NOT to perform abortions.
(The original Hippocratic Oath, for example, included swearing never to take a knife to your patient, ie never to do surgery.)
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:52 am
Remember how this really wasn’t even an abortion at all when roughly the same happened to Karen Santorum (and I’m glad she could have that procedure which her husband would like to make illegal for other women)
Also, Ireland has already been reprimanded by the ECHR. The government is “awaiting” the report.
It also shows why “health and life of the mother exceptions” don’t work. Clearly her life wasn’t in danger enough right up until she died.
borax:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:53 am
I was going to try and write something snarky and a little scathing about the catholic church. Couldn’t do it. There is nothing funny about this. So I’ll just say fuck you to the evil, women hating, child rapist protecting, bringing misery to the world catholic church.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar and scoundrel):
November 14th, 2012 at 8:54 am
Iris:
Following this train of thought: Can we assume thar it is more profitable to let a woman die of a preventable infection than to perform an abortion?
I may be exceptionally cynical, but somehow this way of thinking doesn’t surprise me.
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:55 am
Clearly her life wasn’t in danger enough right up until she died.
I’d argue that wasn’t the case at all (she was in fact, very much at risk), but that it doesn’t affect the invalidity of exception rules all the same.
Amphiox:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:55 am
re 57;
Absolutely high enough to be medically indicated, but not high enough to be covered by an “imminent threat to life” legal exemption most likely. So the physicians involved would be stuck between fulfilling their professional obligation and breaking the law of the land.
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:57 am
I was going to try and write something snarky and a little scathing about the catholic church.
I think Tim Minchin can’t be topped on that anyway.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:57 am
Gregry
Technically it’s still illegal in Germany unless it’s rape, health or life of the mother or “socio-psychological” (which is actually the exception used for terminating pregnancies with gross malformations). In all other cases I could get an illegal but not prosecuted one if I undergo mandatory counselling and am no further along than 12 weeks from fertilization (14 weeks in normal counting)
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:59 am
Absolutely high enough to be medically indicated, but not high enough to be covered by an “imminent threat to life” legal exemption most likely.
but you don’t know.
so don’t even imply it.
seriously.
Marcus Ranum:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:02 am
écrasez l’infâme!!
steve84:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:03 am
This is also a failure of the politicians. Both Irish and European courts have ruled that women have the right to an abortion if their live is in danger. This has been the case since the 90s. But politicians have refused to change the law so far.
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:04 am
*watches Tim Minchin video for 5th time in a row*
I feel a bit less like strangling someone of the catholic persuasion now.
thanks Tim!
steve84:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:07 am
This article explains some of the legal background:
http://www.michaelnugent.com/2012/11/14/tragedy-shame-and-outrage-as-pregnant-savita-dies-in-irish-hospital-because-of-catholic-dogma-and-political-cowardice/
Amphiox:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:13 am
Another thing to remember about the uselessness (and dishonesty) of “threat to life” exceptions is that it is easy to define “imminent” legally in such a restrictive way as to render the exception meaningless. This is a favorite tactic of US anti-abortion politicians. They go on the stump saying they are ok with it if the woman’s life is in danger and get to sound oh so much more reasonable than the Todd Akins and Rick Mourdocks (who ironically basically tried to say exactly this), but in practice it amounts to a blanket ban on all abortions all the time.
(Not to mention wording the statutes in such away as to terrorize physicians away from performing abortions even when they would be allowed for fear of legal harassment)
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:18 am
it is easy to define “imminent” legally in such a restrictive way as to render the exception meaningless.
exactly.
which is why it isn’t worth getting into the game of trying to predict it from an outside perspective.
we shouldn’t play that game, just focus on exactly what you said right here, which means that the exception clauses should be removed.
then the anti-abortion laws will follow suit.
pedron:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:19 am
PZ, I think you need to stop pussy-footing around and just say what you really think.
I for one am confused as to whether you are sympathetic to the Catholic church on this issue…
morgandowney:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:22 am
@21 @28
You don’t know what you’re talking about – teh general Irish population and political system have long been seperated from the Catholic Church – which started happening long before the recent child abuse scandals. Also there are a lot more openly gay elected officials here than in the US for example. So stop guessing and applying your preconceived notions
The issue in this case was not that there was a lack of legal mechanism for the procedure to take place – the problem is that whether to use that mechanism is down to the clinician involved – in another hospital or at another time the procedure would have happened. That is something that really annoys me – there was no “appeal” mechanism. In my view the doctor invovled should be taken to the medical standards board for placing their religious belief ahead of the best medical decision.
Having said that – I would prefer a proper right of choice here rather than the exception clause that is here now. The problem is that – even with a right to choose – it is questionable whether this doctor would have performed the procedure.
Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:22 am
Did you see this part in the article, via a representative from an anti-abortion group:
Tell that to Mr. Halappanavar, assholes.
lordofsporks:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:26 am
So have the doctors been arrested for murder yet?
skeptifem:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:29 am
17 weeks? are you fucking kidding me?
http://www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/week-by-week/week-17.aspx#
I mean christ.
Sastra:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:40 am
Awwwww… it’s a person of faith. Isn’t that sweet? Let us tip-toe and not wake the dear thing up.
People (like Stedman) who think that we ought to focus our criticism only on the religious people and ideas which are bad and praise or forgive the religious people and ideas which are good need to read and re-read this little statement of immunity and consider the implications it has for what is “good” and “bad” — and who determines it.
When the pious make some moral judgment and explain “This is our faith and this is what distinguishes us from those who do not share our faith” we need to be able to respond with a loud and clear “Shame on you.” Shame on them for using “faith” to make a judgment regardless of whether the judgment also happens to make sense on a secular level. Making sense on a secular level alone ought to be the standard — not this mewling attempt at tribalistic othering and childish call for immunity.
As Ophelia Benson puts it, “you believe implausible things for epistemically dubious reasons.” You do not get to sound like you’re bragging.
gussnarp:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:41 am
I wish we could prosecute them all the way up the chain of command to the Pope.
Actually, the “twitching cardiac muscle” gives me an idea. Let’s take the Pope, cut out his heart, set it on a table before all the Bishops and ask them if the Pope is dead, or if he’s still alive until the heart stops beating.
Oh wait, we’re not monsters like they are who let people die over a quirk of biology, so never mind.
Freodin:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:45 am
@59 Tsu Dho Nimh
This is the kind of info I need to cure my lack of knowledge. Thank you!
So these people knew what was at stake and knew what they had to do… but didn’t. Manslaughter by negligence at least, I would say.
Murder is more difficult. You’d need to show intent for that.
Or… german law includes “base motives” in the definition of “murder”. You think that “religious superstition” would count as a base motive?
sireccles:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:47 am
I’d just like to say that I think it’s generally not the medical staff, it’s the managers.
I had the chance to experience St Josephs Hospital in Phoenix (now part of Dignity Health instead of Catholic Healthcare West) earlier this year when my wife gave birth there. I have nothing but the highest of praise for the midwives, nurses and other medical staff who work there. The work they do is of the highest order.
The billing department on the other hand…
opposablethumbs:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:58 am
Just read the relatively brief BBC account. A woman deliberately allowed to die, surrounded by people who only had to lift a hand to save her, a family bereft.
That’s what happens to us when the theocrats have their way, when government does nothing – or doesn’t want to – and when medical professionals either believe the crap themselves or are bullied into putting church bullshit before their patient’s life.
I hope they are prosecuted, that the hospital is prosecuted, that the government is finally spurred to get off their arses and change the law. I wish with all my heart that Ireland and every other religion-dominated country in the world would demand a change in the law and chuck the fuckers out for good measure.
I wish the pope and every last one of the catholic leaders from the cardinals to the bishops had septicaemia right fucking now. And couldn’t be treated, because it’s not their body but belongs to their nasty vindictive fucked-up shithead of a “god”.
pipenta:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:16 am
Saw this article and it just hurt.
This shows only one of the big problems with exceptional abortion (only in cases of rape, incest, risk of death… not like they give a shit about other damage to women’s health)
The clock is ticking. It does not matter if the process is blocked by incompetence, red tape and paperwork, malice or whatever, by the time it is sorted out (assuming it ever gets sorted out) a woman has died, a 14 year old has carried to term. It’s bullshit, evil bullshit.
skeptifem:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:23 am
I know on house the doctors can just do whatever the hell they want regardless of policy or sanity, but in real life it is more complicated than that. A lot of things have to come together for a medical procedure, especially one that is complicated like a 2nd trimester termination. PZ is right to blame the policy imposed by the church and the church-based hospital, they ultimately control the access to resources and the availability of procedures. I am positive that the doctors are fucked up over this, and so are most people who witnessed this kind of shit. When you witness a system-caused gap in care that causes someone harm it is deeply, deeply disturbing to normal people.
davidmcnerney:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:25 am
Couple of comments above blaming the doctors or the hospital.
This isn’t the case though. A succession of Irish governments has failed to legislate on abortion in the special conditions described in the Irish constitution, as interpreted by the Irish supreme court and as verified the European Court of Human Rights.
The doctors have no legislation to tell them what’s legal and what’s not (and they aren’t constitutional lawyers to be fair to them). As usual it’s the cowardice of politicians that killed that poor woman.
(Of course, whoever said “this is a Catholic country” is an arsehole.)
Interestingly, the most common Pro-Life defence used in Ireland is the ‘No one has ever been denied treatment…’ – well they can piss off now.
obscurefox:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:29 am
They were not even refusing to save her based on saving her soul or the babys as both would have not been catholic, anyway they actually killed her because they probably didn’t want to have their imaginary friend upset with them for going against his supposed rules.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:29 am
Actually, German law also allows for murder prosecution if you were just very reckless with the other person’s life, knowing that death was a possibility.
sirecless
Fuck that shit, it was the medical staff that let her die. You might have noticed a tiny little difference between your wife and Ms. Halappanavar, which is that your wife gave birth, apparently healthily while the other poor woman needed an abortion and was left to die. The fact that they don’t kick all puppies doesn’t make them good people.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:34 am
sonofrojblake:
That old canard?
I don’t care if it’s considered legal.
The actions of the Catholic Church are inhumane and monstrous. That they get to hide behind the law…that they get to exercise their privilege behind the shield of the law and have done so for millenia is sickening.
This poor woman didn’t have to die. She shouldn’t have died. The Catholic Church is 100% to blame. It should be illegal.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:36 am
You see the contradiction between those two passages?
They might not have had a concrete law yet they had several courtcases on their side.
They were at least fucking cowards who didn’t say “let’s safe her life and argue later”
Mr. Fire:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:37 am
From the navel-gazing Catholic blog that PZ linked to up there comes this fuckheaded concern troll’s comment:
“I just can’t let it go! I need to stand atop this woman’s corpse and get in the last word!”
Red-Green in Blue:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:38 am
@ Ichthyic #73: My sentiments entirely. However, that song is specifically about the child abuse scandals; I think it’s time he did a second one focusing on abortion. And then perhaps a third on contraception and AIDS, and then…
Who knows, if the Catholic Church has somehow failed to collapse under the weight of its own evil hypocrisy by the time Tim Minchin has penned enough songs, at least we’ll have the material for a charity album to help its many victims? :-/
steve84:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:41 am
Doing the abortion wasn’t strictly illegal. Just in a very, very grey zone. They could have done and pointed to both the national Supreme Court decision and European law to defend themselves. But of course they were moral cowards and killed someone to cover their own asses.
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:43 am
What would have happened to the medical staff had they performed a termination ?
Almost certainly nothing. The Irish constitution allows for abortion in cases where the woman’s life is at risk. Is an Irish prosecutor really going to want to charge doctors in such a situation ? Even if they did the chances of a conviction would be very small, and would be ruled unlawful by the EHCR in due course.
Yes, they would have been putting themselves in a difficult position, but sometimes that is what people have to do. At the very least the staff were guilty of moral cowardice.
skeptifem:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:50 am
So what you think that doctors only get guidelines for practice from the law? That isn’t how it works at all. I guarantee you that the hospital has care protocols in place that are decided by facility or network, and that deviating from them has serious consequences for staff. This is almost always a good thing because it means your doctor has to justify their treatment of you as a patient in light of expert opinion on what produces the best outcome for your specific condition. It only becomes a bad thing when some crazy bullshit like religion gets thrown in as a consideration.
People saying this kind of thing have no idea what has to happen to perform a surgical procedure to begin with. You have to alert and involve all kinds of people (the lab, the pharmacy, the blood bank, recovery room, scheduling, payroll, etc), get all kinds of legal documentation, secure the equipment and venue, prepare for possible emergencies (like blood loss), etc etc. You can’t just decide to do a surgery, policy be damned! Do you really think that any management who got wind of this shit would let the doctor stay in the building for long, or that it would even be possible to assemble a care team under such circumstances? The problem here is absolutely with the system in place rather than the individuals trying to practice medicine within it.
Emrysmyrddin:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:54 am
I’ve been alternately raging and sobbing over this all day. If she’d been well enough for a short hop over on the ferry this woman would be alive now. Monsters. Murdering fucking monsters.
Emrysmyrddin:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:58 am
I just can’t imagine the agony she must have been, the fear and helplessness, unable to move as something was dying inside of her and some fucking coward kept towering over her for days, checking and re-checking she-the-vessel for a fucking muscle twitch, all while metaphorically patting her on the head and saying, ‘There there, dearie, you’re in Catholic hands now’. Utter fucking terror. I just can’t do it. It’s so utterly horrifying.
nathanlevesque:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:58 am
“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.”
Just what exactly are you advocating here? That kind of language unnerves me, though not nearly as much as what was done to that poor woman.
strange gods before me ॐ:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:03 am
nathan, perhaps he speaks to individuals who are not bound by the free exercise clause.
skeptifem:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:06 am
look, they would either have to be up front about the procedure they were planning (documented in a million places) and be stopped by the hospital (physically by security if needed), or they would have to defraud the hospital by pretending to do a different procedure (something that is risky as hell for patients because care providers cannot accurately verify what they are doing and why against documentation).
mudpuddles:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:06 am
As someone who has worked at Galway University Hospitals, I feel I have to reinforce a point raised by ImaginesaBeach (comment #11):
University Hospital Galway is not a “Catholic hospital”, in that it is not run or owned by a Catholic Order or any wing of the Catholic (or any other) church. It is managed, along with several other hospitals in the region, by a management team put in place by the Health Services Executive.
Current guidance to Irish hospitals is that, while abortion to save the life of the mother (as a procedure) is not explicitly allowed for under Statute law, neither is it illegal, and under the Irish Constitution a doctor performing an abortion in order to save the life of the mother could not reasonably be prosecuted. Following Savita Halappanavar’s death, the main issue being reported and debated here in Ireland right now is not about the role of Catholicism per se (at least not at this moment), rather it is about the fact that for some reason (which, granted may be religious) the medical teams at the hospital did not carry out the necessary and lawful procedure; and that despite the fact that the Irish Constitution implicitly allows for termination of pregnancy in the event that the mother’s life is at risk, the appropriate legislation that would make this explicit and unambiguous has not been enacted (something which the European court of Human Rights has castigated Ireland over since 2010). An initial report to the Minister for Health indicates that the reason for the refusal of the procedure was actually because of uncertainty about the law, and today he has stated that it needs to be clarified to medical practitioners that abortion in this circumstance is lawful. Whether he has the balls or brains to enact appropriate legislation remains to be seen (but considering recent displays of moral bankruptcy in his performance of other of his duties, I think not).
My reading of it is that some unbelieveably stupid and incompassionate assholes let a woman die in agony instead of talking action they knew might help to save her life. Regardless of the legal situation, there is no excuse for taking that conscious decision to no act. That is only compounded by the fact that they did not bother – if they were really that worried about it – to investigate the legality of the necessary procedure through legal counsel.
I have no doubt that the assholes in this case were probably swayed by Catholic teaching, but if so it was likely on a personal level – perhaps they felt it was wrong, or they believed one of their superiors would consider it wrong – and it was not a hospital policy. That being said, the hospital may have a “Catholic ethos”, but if so it does not seem to be explicit, and I have never come across it there.
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:09 am
Reading the BBC report, it seems the hospital was University Hospital Galway, which is a state-run hospital, and not a Catholic one.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:11 am
theophontes:
Nope. She expressed that as well. She told them she was Hindu.
****
kevinalexander:
What do you think this is… Pharyngula by Mother Theresa?
(yes, I know you’re not being serious)
****
davidmcnerney @89:
from PZ’s link (emphasis added):
davidmcnerney:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:12 am
@Skeptifem
“People saying this kind of thing have no idea what has to happen to perform a surgical procedure to begin with.”
It has to be legal. (I don’t think I’m disagreeing with you).
The situation in Ireland is that we have a constitutional arrangement that protects the life of the mother (we don’t have anything like Roe vs Wade) – and doctors are unclear about what they can and cannot do.
This is a country with a population 1/100 of the United States – cases like this don’t occur every day, there aren’t really precedents and the only real solution to that is for our government to legislate on it and clearly define the legal boundaries.
Pro-Life groups for obvious reasons don’t want this – they’d prefer more women died than even the slightest crack was opened.
But there is a continuous pressure to get this legislation from pro-choice groups – but it is falling on deaf (by choice) ears. This will not be fixed by the hospital or the medical board or anyone else except in our parliament.
crowepps:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:16 am
Their shrieking got a bill that would have specifically given them permission to let women die through the U.S. House:
The Senate refused to pass it.
Josh, Official SpokesGay:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:18 am
I don’t give a flying fuck about medical personnel afraid of discipline as compared to letting a real live woman DIE. Moral cowardice is right. No one-no one?-on that staff could bring himself to do the right thing? Fuck that.
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.
Seriously—that I even have to state this? Why the hell aren’t more of you already there?
unclefrogy:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:27 am
>>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 mother church will decide what god wants to be done with it!
slavery anyone?
uncle frogy
Lynna, OM:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:28 am
Excerpts from Salon’s coverage of this story:
dianne:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:30 am
I didn’t realize that there was any ambiguity in Irish law that would allow the abortion to occur before the last cardiac muscle twitch stopped. I now have absolutely no sympathy for the medical personnel in this case. They clearly killed this woman deliberately. A few problems with their care, any one of which should get them sued for malpractice at the very least:
1. They did perform an abortion on a pregnancy that was clearly non-viable and endangering the mother’s life.
2. They did not start prophylactic antibiotics on a patient with PROM for more than 24 hours.
3. They did not move a patient clearly in early sepsis to the ICU.
4. They provided inadequate pain relief. Three days of agony in the hospital is not acceptable.
5. They provided inadequate fetal monitoring. If they weren’t, for whatever reason, willing to do the abortion before the fetal heart rate stopped, they should have been ready to do it the instant that it (inevitably) did stop. That means monitoring and keeping an OR ready and having the patient prepped. Which she clearly wasn’t.
This is just what I can figure out from one little article in the popular press. My guess is that there are at least a dozen or so more errors that would be revealed in a chart review. I hope the investigators go through it with diligence.
carlie:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:42 am
Then that’s even worse. It wasn’t that they were afraid of eternal damnation if they did it, it was that they placed not breaking a law above saving someone’s life.
dianne:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:42 am
they would either have to be up front about the procedure they were planning (documented in a million places) and be stopped by the hospital (physically by security if needed), or they would have to defraud the hospital by pretending to do a different procedure
They had several options that might have served. They could have documented that the fetus was 100% doomed and the mother dying and said they were going to do the procedure per recommendations of the Irish and EU courts.
Alternately, they could have lied. Very easily. Simply put a stethoscope to the patient’s abdomen, say, “Fetal heart tones not detected”, document that in the chart and go ahead with no further barriers.
I don’t like lying, especially in medicine. And lying to the patient is always wrong. But there are worse sins in medicine. And letting a person die needlessly* is top among them.
*Unless the patient with full knowledge of the consequences and competence refuses treatment. Then you’re just stuck.
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:48 am
The claim they were uncertain about the law does not make such sense. If that were the case, why was no attempt made to get an emergency hearing before a judge ? There was time, as such things can be arranged in a matter of hours, in the middle of the night if necessary.
mudpuddles:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:50 am
@ carlie, #113
Yep, that and deference to the sick teachings of a vile, sadistic cult that loves to promote suffering.
Like Josh (#109) says, moral cowardice.
dianne:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:52 am
There was time, as such things can be arranged in a matter of hours, in the middle of the night if necessary.
In the US at least these things can be arranged within minutes at 3 AM in the OR. They had days to get a ruling. I am moderately convinced that they were using the law as an excuse and, for whatever reason, sought to avoid saving this woman’s life by providing her with a life saving operation.
davem:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:56 am
So the point of a Catholic hospital is what, exactly? Looking at the BBC article listed above, and watching the Irish Prime Minister do his ‘sad face’ impression, while clearly intending to do nothing is fairly sickening. What’s the matter with these people?
Hospitals. Fixing God’s mistakes for several hundred years.
mudpuddles:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:57 am
@ Matt (#115)
As an Irishman I regret to say it Matt, but I have to acknowledge that right now there is a great deal about this country that does not make sense.
sqlrob:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:58 am
So how are emergencies handled then?
Maureen Brian:
November 14th, 2012 at 12:07 pm
Placing adherence to “the law” over saving a woman’s life is bad enough.
Claiming to do so and then getting the law wrong / failing to ask someone who might know is gross malpractice – whatever the ensuing whitewash may come up with.
As you would expect, Ireland has a Medical Council and this is what it says in its current guidance
At a University Hospital attached to a Medical School which claims to teach – oh! my! – Medical Ethics you’d expect someone to know where to find that manual.
All of which leaves me wondering just how often this sort of thing happens with no-one daring to make a fuss.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 14th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
For those people looking for reasons outside religion, the law, the uncertainty and so on fail to realize that it’s catholicism all the way down.
Without catholicism the constitution wouldn’t be so fucked up, medical stuff wouldn’t put being a catholic country above the life of a patient, government would passed a law long ago
Emrysmyrddin:
November 14th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
QFFT.
mythbri:
November 14th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
@Maureen Brian #121
The very fact that they legislated life as distinct from health utterly sickens me.
LykeX:
November 14th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Especially since they’re Catholics and can get forgiveness for a few Hail Marys. Wouldn’t it be better to just sin, save a life, and then get absolution?
Honestly, sometimes I think the only thing of value in a church is the architecture and the books. The only reason I care about the priests at all is because I hold firm to a principle of affording rights to ALL people, no matter how vile.
greg1466:
November 14th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Seems pretty simple. Everyone who involved in the decision to deny an abortion should be charged with conspiracy to commit murder. And since they’ve all been so kind to be very up front about it, the trial shouldn’t take long at all.
DLC:
November 14th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
I remember reading an article some years ago about women who think they might be pregnant going to England in order to have proper care. It wasn’t that they all wanted abortions, it was because the Irish Hospitals were staffed by nincompoops.
It’s a horrific notion. “our bodies are sacred and must not be violated.” cries the 70 year old bishop. To which I reply: then you won’t be needing that cardiac stent then ? or that pacemaker, or those drugs that clean the triglycerides out of your rotting old carcass you lying hypocritical bastard!
kantalope:
November 14th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Do we have anyone on the street, as it were, in Ireland? Are people talking about this? Is there outrage or is it page nine next to the legal announcement stuff?
Forelle:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
From the Salon article:
Even accepting that he really believes that there was a child, the order is so telling and infuriating. By the way, I’ve read somewhere that Halappanavar was an only child. It’s heartbreaking.
You know, this sounds like media and people are wondering: “Why didn’t they just lie? Nobody would have been the wiser,” which seems very Catholic to me. Talk instead about a damn law that respects women! Hypocrisy kills.
I don’t mean at all that the present talk about lying doctors is idle, on the contrary. I just mean that we regular people should not rely on the lying of others.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
According to my twitter feed, kantalope, there are currently 3000 people in downtown Dublin protesting. A commonly seen sign apparently says, “Savita had a heartbeat too”
silomowbray:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
Ichthyic @ 60:
Interesting! Ichthyic, would you mind speaking to this a little more? I mean how there’s an abortion law in Enzedd, and yet everyone understands it’s to be ignored. Could anyone press charges for an abortion in New Zealand? Why hasn’t it been taken off the books? Etc etc.
You Kiwis sure do get up to things.
crowepps:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:03 pm
One of the comments at the linked article is:
which may explain why ‘Ireland has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world’.
I suspect women rarely die of ‘complications of pregnancy’ because instead their deaths are tabulated under septicaemia, or blood loss, or stroke, or heart failure, even when those conditions are CAUSED by the pregnancy.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
The proximate cause of death may well have been septicemia. But how did she get septicemia?
When I was in high school, a classmate died of a crushed skull. That was the proximate cause of death. Of course, the coroner ruled it an automobile accident and found the other driver at fault.
Savita died of septicemia. Because she did not have the abortion she needed.
Forelle:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
It’s some time since I’ve felt so utterly disgusted and upset at a piece of news. And to think that this disaster probably wouldn’t make the news in the Philippines or certain American countries doesn’t help. Vile, vile people.
dianne:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Any chance of something happening on the EU level? It seems to me that this act and the Irish laws with respect to abortion in general likely violate EU human rights requirements. Can Ireland be fined or kicked out of the EU? Might improve the financial situation in the EU as a whole and would certainly improve the human rights status.
Marcus Ranum:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
The miscarriage didn’t kill Savita, septicaemia did.
Which is kind of like saying “bullets don’t kill. holes do.” Some of these people must live in a world where cause and effect are a mystery.
dianne:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
I suspect women rarely die of ‘complications of pregnancy’ because instead their deaths are tabulated under septicaemia, or blood loss, or stroke, or heart failure, even when those conditions are CAUSED by the pregnancy.
The US maternal mortality rate went up a few years ago when they stopped allowing this sort of BS and required every death certificate to include data on whether the person who died had been pregnant within one year of her death. (Or his death: there are rare instances of pregnancy in FTM transsexuals.)
paleotrent:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
How many of those bishops are likely to face a difficult pregnancy? I, like PZ, have had it with accommodation.
silomowbray:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
This tragedy reminds me of my friend from Ireland who was commenting on the Catholic Church. He grew up under the yoke of priests and nuns and didn’t much miss the environment. This was a few years ago when there was another spike in reported cases of child sex abuse by clergy. His words, as best as I can recall them:
“When is everyone going to realize that the Church is simply an organization that sells and delivers unnecessary pain and grief?”
steve84:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
@dianne
The European Court of Human Rights already ruled that women have a right to an abortion under these circumstances (just not to an elective abortion in their home country). What Ireland failed to do is translate that directive into national law.
As for financial sanctions about that. I think that can only happen if a country violates EU law – which is NOT the same as violating the human rights charter.
dianne:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
@steve: So Ireland only violated the EU human rights charter so they can get away with it? How do they live with themselves?
colinforster:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:37 pm
Last week in the UK the BBC ran a report by the Newsnight show which included a segment in which a victim of child abuse from the 1980s accused an elderly politician of being one of the paedophiles who had raped him.
His account was uncorroborated and many basic journalistic checks were not done.
Within a week, the story fell apart, the victim recanted and apologised and the Director General of the BBC was forced to resign.
This abortion story seems to have some parallels. It is based on the account of a single individual who is the grieving husband of the deceased. As far as I know, he is not medically qualified.
The doctors involved seem to have been tried and convicted before they have uttered a word in their own defense. Richard Dawkins himself has tweeted that they should be struck off the medical register, their careers ended, arbitrarily on the say so of a pitchforked mob.
What the fuck are you all thinking?
Beatrice:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
colinforster,
Her husband imagined her being in agony for more than two days? Or is he just lying about it?
stonyground:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
@colinforster
You maybe right, that we should give everyone the benefit of the doubt until we know all the facts. however, if the Catholic Church is involved in any way, my benefit of the doubt hat is getting a little threadbare.
http://www.highstrangeness.tv/articles/catholics.php
dianne:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
colinfoster: The linked articles give details of her medical care…or, rather the lack thereof. Even the little information given makes it clear that, at the least, gross malpractice occurred. There is a hospital review underway. I hope they have the courage and the legal backup to do the right thing and reform the system. And get rid of practitioners who weren’t willing to do what they could within the system as it stood.
steve84:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
The European Court of Human Rights does not belong to he EU:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights
It’s chartered under the European Convention of Human Rights:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
It was only very recently it was incorporated more closely into EU law. Reading that it seems mechanisms are in place to make sure that judgments are complied with, but it’s not so clear how.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
What the fuck are you thinking? We who are not on a criminal jury can come to any conclusion we conclude based on the public facts. And the public facts condemn the hospital, the doctors, and whatever third party groups like the catholic church that effected policy decisions so that appropriate medical treatement was not given in a timely fashion.
Amphiox:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
One would think that septicemia should count as a violation of the sacred body that people who believe this (and aren’t hypocrites) should strive to prevent….
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
Who had “142″ as the answer to “When will the trolls show up?”
Sastra:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Assuming the basic facts are as reported, I’d say it was unlikely that concern or confusion about the law was the major problem when it came to the doctors themselves. My guess is that one or more of them was very religious, very Catholic, and very insistent that the “moral law” be followed — and the others, though less fanatic, allowed themselves to be swayed. Group dynamics combined with faith combined with legal uncertainty. Someone in that hospital must have steeled themselves to do the Right Thing and first put this woman in jeopardy, and then watch her die, while self-righteously congratulating themselves and others for exercising a holistic moral discipline which considers the soul.
I want the Catholics to make this person a saint.
Tethys:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
I am thinking that these doctors are guilty of murder for failing to give this poor girl proper medical care. Their actions are clearly grossly negligent, and they should lose their licences and go to jail.
Torturing her
allowing her to sufferuntil she became septic and died, rather than providing the clear, standard course of treatment is a heinous crime.Amphiox:
November 14th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
Well, duh.
I mean, if only the gunshot victim and dodged left instead of right, or wore a bullet-proof vest (personal responsibility!), or carried his own gun and blown away his killer first, then he wouldn’t have died, now would he?
Amphiox:
November 14th, 2012 at 2:01 pm
What trial?
What conviction?
I don’t see any such thing. Just a bunch of regular human beings exercising their supposedly god-given freedom to make their own moral and ethical judgments.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 14th, 2012 at 2:03 pm
colinforster
I’m going to violate the 3 posts rule and I’m fully willing to accept whatever the Poopeyhead throws at me:
Fuck you
Fuck you for alleging that this is a sham, a story made up, a lie being told at the point when the fucking Taoiseach himself has confirmed it and put a sad face to it.
Fuck you for the lack of a minimal amount of human decency and compassion at this moment when a family grieves the loss of their wife and daughter, a real woman of flesh and blood, a real woman who died in pain and agony.
Fuck you
+++
I was puzzled about that, too, then it dawned on me:
Maternal mortality is normalized.
By banning abortion there’s no death from an abortion. there are, of course, more women who carry to terma and who then face the much higher risk of maternal mortality.
mandrellian:
November 14th, 2012 at 2:07 pm
I have friends that are Catholic. Moderate and liberal, of course, just like me. They’ve had pre-marital non-procreative sex and regularly use contraception, some have had terminations, none attend church, confession or take communion and all of them are more or less Catholic by familial association only. They all still happily identify as Catholic – despite not, in practice, being Catholic. It’s on whatever official forms ask the question and it’s what they say whenever the conversation comes up.
And every time I read something like this (which is depressingly fucking frequently) I just want to grab their lapels and say “Why the fuck do you still willingly belong to this bunch of geriatric rapists and misogynist torturers?! Why do you let these fuckers speak for you?!”
My most earnest fever-dream is that the new Australian Royal Commission into child abuse delves so deep into the festering roots of this cabal of medieval monsters that the whole shabby enterprise is revealed for the tumour on our country that is.
rq:
November 14th, 2012 at 2:18 pm
Amphiox @55
Are you saying it’s ok for them to have waited? Unprepared? Without even giving painkillers? Because her life wasn’t in immediate danger?
There’s a reason why, when you’re pregnant (I wonder, will you ever be?) they tell you to contact your doctor in case of any strange pains and/or bleeding, and why they recommend going to the hospital very, very fast, because it can go wrong so very quickly. And it can end very badly. Often enough, for these doctors to know. For them to know that yes, her life was in immediate danger.
When you have blood and dying tissues in a sterile environment and festering, you have a more-than-slim (i.e. an almost certain) chance of developing septicemia. And no, if you know what to expect, you don’t give antibiotics after it has set in, you give the patient a fighting chance and do everything possible to prevent the septicemia in the first place. Especially if the fetus will not survive and that this is already known. So yes, she was in imminent danger.
Maybe next time we should just wait, and let that car crash victim bleed out, because you never know if they’ll actually bleed to death until they do.
LykeX:
November 14th, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Well, it’s a lot easier to agree to disagree when the other side isn’t actively killing people.
The Catholic Church is killing pregnant women and protecting child molesters from prosecution. Until that changes, I don’t see the slightest room for compromise.
Gregory Greenwood:
November 14th, 2012 at 2:41 pm
Horror stories like this one still sicken me, but sadly they no longer surprise me. There is truly no pit of murderous depravity that the catholic church won’t happily trawl through in order to maintain the toxic, medieval theology that empowers its decrepit priesthood.
Damned death-cultists, one and all.
——————————————————————
colinforster @ 142;
Really? And what ‘parallels’ would they be? Why should we look at a failure of journalism within the BBC with regard to an unrelated paedophillia accusation, and use that as a basis to assume that the husband in this case is lying about the events that befell his wife? Especially when catholic church run hospitals have plenty of form when it comes to denying abortion services to women with a desperate medical need for them, and a general attitude toward women that reeks of the worst kind of misogynistic contempt?
As noted by other commenters, this is not a court of law requiring proof beyond all reasonable doubt. This is a group of people commenting on a blog article, and as such balance of evidence will do just fine, and the balance of evidence seems to be very damning for the church indeed.
Does one need medical qualifications to notice when somebody is dying in screaming agony all of a sudden?
‘Tried and convicted’? In what court? You hyperbole does nothing tro render your position any more credible.
On the available evidence, it does seem that the attending medical personnel are guilty of gross misconduct at the very least. Such is indeed grounds for them to be struck off, once due process has been completed. If Dawkins stated that they should be arbitrarily struck off without any proper process undertaken – on the “say so of a pitchforked mob” as you claim – then you will surely have no difficulty linking to his actual comments to substantiate your claim, now would you?
And yet, no link. What a surprise…
We are thinking that pregnant women are still human beings, and should not be denied essential medical care in order to conform with the toxic delusions of power hungy, misogynistic priests.
What are you thinking? Why is your first response to this story to completely ignore the human tragedy of the likely entirely needless death of this innocent woman in favour of defending a church known for its attitude that women’s lives are worthless set next to their use as subhuman incubators?
This technique of ‘hyperskepticism’ of any criticism of the church is a well known tactic of religious apologists. It will not work here. We are wise to that trick, and every other one in the theist playbook.
You need to think long and hard about how very disgustingly ghoulish your preparedness to trample over the corpse of this women in defence of your precious death-cult really is.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 2:42 pm
We’re thinking that the staff involved were complicit in the death of Savita.
We’re thinking that the staff adhered more to Catholic rules rather than the best interests of the patient (which were ignored).
We’re thinking it’s horrible and tragic that she died when her life could and *should* have been saved.
We’re thinking the Catholic Church has once again proven itself to be the pit of human filth, a cesspool from which the dregs of humanity get to exercise their every whim and be excused by their sky daddy.
We’re thinking with compassion and empathy towards another human being, as well as outrage at Catholicism, and those involved.
And at this point, many of us are thinking: WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU?
This isn’t trial. This is a blog where people are weighing in with their opinions. We can “try” the case all we like. This isn’t a courtroom. That’s where “innocent before proven guilty” holds sway. That’s where pronouncements of guilt are issued and must be followed legally.
Here, outside the courtroom, we are free to speak out minds.
You ought to stop speaking yours until you learn to read for comprehension (then you can have an informed opinion).
LykeX:
November 14th, 2012 at 2:45 pm
You seem to ignore that this is far from an isolated incident. There are multiple cases where doctors have done an abortion to save the life of the mother and have been sanctioned by the Catholic Church for it.
For example (one google search – 30 seconds):
Nun excommunicated for approving abortion
Hospital has Catholic status revoked for doing abortion
This is not an isolated, extraordinary case. Don’t pretend it is.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 14th, 2012 at 2:48 pm
BTW, the nasty part of my brain came up with an appropriate sentence for the medical personal involved:
For the rest of their lives, twice a year, at Savita’s birthday and the day of her death, they have to sit for 12 hours in a room with nothing but a big picture of her, saying “Hello, it’s my birthday. I could have celebrated it with my family if it hadn’t been for you” and “hello, on this day I died because of you”.
They are kindly reminded of the days coming up with official letters 2 and 4 weeks in advance…
Mr. Fire:
November 14th, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Worthless, concern-trolling non-sequitur.
A medical qualification is not required to know that she went days without treatment for a serious yet easily treatable medical condition, and didn’t get it because of Catholicism.
But you continue masturbating over the idea that the reliability of her husband’s testimony vis-a-vis her suffering is some kind of relevant and winning point.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
While there is plenty of blame here to heap on the Church at Rome, let’s be more realistic. The Irish constitution prohibits any official church. The victim is dead as a result of the laws of the secular state of Ireland. You can’t even blame the doctors, whose hands were tied by that law (the life-threatening septicemia wasn’t diagnosed until after the fetus had died).
Had Irish law permitted abortion on demand, the victim would most likely be alive and well. But since Irish law counts an unborn fetus as worth more than an adult female, she died. The government and or people of Ireland can change that law, and they don’t have to get permission from Rome to do it.
barbyau:
November 14th, 2012 at 2:54 pm
@160 – A hospital having it’s Catholic status revoked seems like an ideal outcome of a hospital performing a medical procedure the “celibate” men in dresses oppose. More of that please!
barbyau:
November 14th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Come on now guys. Just because the man is alone now doesn’t mean he’s medically qualified to state that his wife is dead. And we call ourselves skeptics! /snark
Azkyroth, Former Growing Toaster Oven:
November 14th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
*sigh* 157 comments. There’s some stupid sack of shit defending the murderers, isn’t there?
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
And here’s an internet for you
Beatrice:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:03 pm
Azkyroth,
It must be your lucky day! There is a stupid sack of shit defending the murderers and there is a stupid sack of shit saying Catholic Church isn’t to blame.
Mr. Fire:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
Perhaps you have an idea as to how the taboo on abortions does not stem directly or indirectly from pressure exerted by the Catholic Church.
Care to share with us how restrictions on abortion are a secularly-derived value?
steve84:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:07 pm
@163
Their hands weren’t tied. The law was unclear, but there were enough advisory opinions, as well as legal and medical directives to spell out that they could have done something.
While abortion on demand is illegal, abortion to save a woman’s life isn’t. It’s just not explicitly legal. It’s a grey area and they could have done the procedure. It’s nearly certain that nothing would have happened. There may have been an investigation and the child rapers would have a hissy fit, but do you really think they would have been prosecuted? They had the opinions of the highest Irish Court and one of the highest European courts on their side.
campbell:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
Outraged and completely agree the EU judgments should have teeth, the Irish law should be clarified and enforced and the entire medical staff and administrators involved are moral cowards. Every person in my “real” life who eye-rolled and mocked me for getting all upset about the Republican Rape Gang (“oh they misspoke” or “oh those guys are just fringe” or “the platform isn’t policy” or “Ryan didn’t really say that” or “you feminists are over-reacting”) can just. fuck. off.
I’d be very interested in knowing what the Irish Conference of Bishops has said with regard to these issues in Catholic-run hospitals. I realize the hospital in this case isn’t Catholic, but knowing what the Irish Church says with regard to their own hospitals tells us something about just how far into stupid and cruel this hospital’s actions were. In the U.S., the specific directives governing health care promulgated by the U.S. bishops would have allowed the abortion. See Directives 45 and 47 at http://www.usccb.org/about/doctrine/ethical-and-religious-directives/
Of course, as we learned in the Phoenix case and other examples, we can’t assume that individual providers, hospitals, or bishops will follow their own rules.
Finally, I get the “shut ‘em down” outrage PZ expresses and I agree that liberal and progressive Catholics are deluded to think they can change the RCC from within and should be ashamed to label themselves Catholic. (And it makes me even more pissed at whatshername the ex-atheist who’s now supposedly Catholic; “intellectual reasons” my ass.)
However, to literally “shut ‘em down” if we’re talking about the hospitals would be pretty bad for the already f’d up U.S. health care system. Catholic hospitals (many run as non-profits) disproportionately care for the poor, the elderly, medicaid and medicare patients–overall, I think the figure is something like 1 in 6 hospital patients is in a Catholic hospital, 12% of all hospitals in the US are Catholic-run. I agree the downside of their ubiquity is their awful policies regarding reproduction, birth, sterilization, and euthanasia, but what do we replace them with when we shut ‘em down? I want their policies to change but given the paranoia we saw from the RCC in the U.S. over employee insurance contraceptive coverage, I don’t have much hope it’s possible. Meanwhile, people–often with no other choices in their towns–walk into Catholic hospitals with no clear idea of how they may be treated. Or whether they’ll walk out.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:16 pm
Some commentators above seem to think I’ve tried to absolve the church of its responsibility in this matter. I have not done so, and clearly stated there is plenty of blame to heap up there.
But if you think that Irish law is ambiguous in this case, you are just not facing reality. The mother’s life was not in danger when she first arrived at the hospital, and under those circumstances, the prohibition against abortion applied. The law does not allow abortion just because continued pregnancy MIGHT turn into septicemia or some other life-threatening complication, which is always true of every pregnancy.
Yes, the influence of the Church is strong in Ireland, and yes they should be blamed for persuading the people and government to keep abortion illegal. But it is a plain fact that Ireland requires no permission from Rome to change its law.
Fixing this terrible situation in Ireland does not require priests or Bishops. It requires elected officials and voting citizens.
barbyau:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
campbell – My worry is that they have been very active at purchasing more and more hospitals in the US. Formerly independent hospitals that suddenly have to adhere to Catholic teaching. Despite what the Bishops said, I get a real sense that the Catholic teachings they want hospitals to follow do not allow abortion.
Not too long ago a woman had to leave a Catholic hospital to have an ectopic pregnancy dealt with. The Catholic hospital would have done nothing until after the fallopian tube ruptured. I believe PZ posted on it, in fact.
Beatrice:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:23 pm
Let’s say that at the point of arriving to the hospital delaying abortion was “only” endangering her health and not her life, but then her condition changed (sometimes during those days while she was in agony), and the doctors still refused to perform the abortion.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Nolajim.
You seem to have a very vague understanding of facts.
Savita’s cervix was dilated and she was leaking amniotic fluid. Her fetus was actively dying, and there was zero chance of saving it. Zero. None.
This was an obvious risk of infection! This is obstetrics and gynecology 101.
That she developed an infection was entirely predictable.
Do you know how infections work? Left untreated – which includes an open, gaping wound being untended infections turn into septicemia. This is microbiology and infectious disease 101.
Savita Halappanavar’s death was predictable. And they did nothing while she screamed in pain.
Because Jesus says so.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Mr. Fire: I did not say that prohibition of abortion is a secularly derived value. What I did was to reiterate the plain fact that the law of the state or Ireland comes from its elected legislature, not from any council of Bishops or from Rome. Yes, we can blame the church for this mess, but you’re not going to change the church anytime soon. You can, however, get the legislature to behave more rationally.
d.f.manno:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:25 pm
@Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus (#91):
So does U.S. law. It’s called “depraved indifference” murder and usually constitutes murder in the second degree.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Esteleth: I agree that what the doctors did was cruel, unethical, and medically ill advised. I have said nothing above that could be construed as suggesting otherwise. What I did say is that Ireland’s abortion law is much clearer in this kind of situation than you seem to realize.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:28 pm
When she initially presented, she was having a miscarriage. The staff told her that in a few hours, it would all be over. And in a typical case, they would have been right, and Savita would be at home, and maybe she and her husband would be discussing when they would try again.
But her uterus did not – for whatever reason – expel the fetus. And when that happened – when the staff realized that the miscarriage was not spontaneously completing, the calculus of care changed. Her prognosis changed. And what was necessary to save her changed.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:30 pm
The thing about pregnancies is that sometimes something that seems perfectly fine and healthy and normal can turn toxic in a hurry. A woman can walk in, feeling and seeming fine, and 48 hours later start showing signs of pre-eclampsia or something. The assessment of when her life is in acute danger is – and should – be made at the time.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:31 pm
No argument there: by medical and ethical standards, the Drs. SHOULD have intervened sooner than they did, including aborting the pregnancy.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:32 pm
Wait, you mean the law that they actually don’t have? The law that they’ve been adamant about not having for the past 20 years.
Is it that law that youR’e referring to?
Thought so.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:34 pm
Then you need to show that the legislature can and will tell the catholic church to go to hell on telling it what to do. Or, as PZ claims, it is de facto taking orders from Rome. Logic 101. Which your little bit of sophistry doesn’t change.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:35 pm
BTW: Irish law says that anyone (doctor or not) who performs an illegal abortion can be imprisoned for life.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
Gilliel: Please explain. I’m not sure what you mean by the law they don’t have. As far as I can tell, the prohibition against abortion is on the books and enforced in Ireland.
dianne:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:37 pm
what do we replace them with when we shut ‘em down?
So, don’t shut them down, take them over. They’ll make nice public hospitals, I’m sure. And if they really take as many of the poor and uninsured as they claim, there won’t even be a change in payer mix.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:38 pm
So.
Despite Irish law saying that abortion is permissible to save the life of the mother, and Savita dying, and there being no hope for the fetus, a pack of doctors didn’t do anything because they valued themselves over her.
Glad to know Irish doctors are so generous.
Beatrice:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:38 pm
No problem there, since they would have performed a legal abortion. I think we already concluded that abortion in case of the woman’s life being n danger is allowed. We’ve been over that several times.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 14th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Well right now, we’re all thinking you’re at best an idiot, because the doctors have not been charged, let alone tried and convicted, nor have they been threatened with pitchforks.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:39 pm
Nerd of Readhead: There is no sophistry here. “Logic 101″ as you say, requires us to face the facts. 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.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:40 pm
Nolajim, 20 years ago, in the X case, the Irish Supreme Court ruled that abortion was permissible to save the life of the mother.
This is the absolute law of the land.
Not long ago, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the failure of Ireland to enact laws and policies enabling women whose lives were endangered by their pregnancies to get an abortion was a violation of human rights and was unpermissible.
Savita getting an abortion was completely legal under Irish law.
Ogvorbis: resident of Threadruptia (and broken):
November 14th, 2012 at 3:41 pm
Er, I call bullshit on this.
Her water had broken. Her uterus was dilated, open for any bacteria present. Allowing bacteria into a nutrient rich environment, with necrotic tissue, is a recipe for a raging infection. Raging infections are life threatening. So, even with no infection present when she arrived, the doctors had to know that failure to treat, failure to remove the dead and dying tissue, failure to protect her uterus, placed her life in danger.
And if the legislature in question is willingly acting as an agent for the Catholic Church? What then? Where do you think the legislature got the idea to outlaw abortions? Planet Kolob?
Then why were doctors, trained professionals, confused as to what they could, and could not, do?
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
So, despite the fact – documented all over the damn place – that the Catholic Church dominates Ireland culturally and more-or-less owns a large number of politicians, Ireland’s retrograde laws are a secular problem and the Church is powerless? Who the what now?
Amphiox:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:42 pm
No. I was saying that the law was structured in a fashion that encouraged them to wait, and that this was a BAD thing. Good laws should encourage people to do the right thing, make it easy to do the right thing, rather than make it hard to do the right thing. Good laws should be structured such that doing the right thing becomes the path of least resistance, so that it doesn’t take heroic levels of courage to do the right thing.
I also said (in later posts) that in many instances the laws are DELIBERATELY structured in this fashion for hypocritical political reasons, and that this too, is a BAD thing.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
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.Until the legislature proves by action it is capable of doing so, then they are under the effectivew control of the church. Period, end of story. Why are you so dense on that issue? Why?
Ogvorbis: resident of Threadruptia (and broken):
November 14th, 2012 at 3:46 pm
Powerless church? What the hell planet do you hail from? The RCC is very powerful in the politics of many nations (including the US and Ireland). They lobby (and spend lots of money doing it (overtly and covertly)) to make their twisted version of morality the law of the land. And in lots of nations, they have succeeded.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Esteleth: I agree that the influence of the church in Ireland is large, and the leads to all manner of nightmares, including the present situation. Yes, we should blame the church for keeping Irish law in the dark ages. But it is the Irish state that killed this victim, not the church. And this problem can be fixed by the state, with or without the support or permission of the church. How many voting citizens or Ireland really believe any of that godrot anyway?
Beatrice:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Or less balls, depending on how you look at it.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
Dang, borked the blockquote in #195. It should read:
Until the legislature proves by action it is capable of doing so, then they are under the effective control of the church. Period, end of story. Why are you so dense on that issue? Why?
Mr. Fire:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:48 pm
You appear to be wrestling with a strawman entirely of your own making.
Alright.
You alloted a portion of blame to the Catholic Church, and then placed a separate portion of blame on…somthing else.
What is that something else, exactly? Because when you say things like:
…it seems like you are either too dense to see how the two can be intertwined, or you are disingenuous.
Beatrice:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Oh good, the “more balls” thing wasn’t from Nerd.
machintelligence:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
If you aren’t seeing red yet, I found this link at Libby Anne’s blog:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0910/1224323797477.html
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Nolajim
For 20 years since the Case X Irish legislation has refused to make the necessary legislation that would have applied in this situation and given everybody clear guidelines to save Savita’s life as they were told to do by their own court 20 years ago and quote recently by the ECHR
Mr. Fire:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Let Savita eat cake.
campbell:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
@barbyau: I agree with your concern re spread of Catholic-owned hospitals.
Yes, I followed the thread re ectopic pregnancy and shared the outrage over the RCC’s “Doctrine of Double Effect.” A small correction to your characterization, though: it’s not that “The Catholic hospital would have done nothing until after the fallopian tube ruptured.” Rather, it’s that the hospital would not have allowed the administration of abortifacient drugs and instead would have surgically removed a portion of the tube (a more medically dangerous procedure and one that puts the woman’s future fertility at risk).
Finally, I’m not sure I understood what you meant by this: “Despite what the Bishops said, I get a real sense that the Catholic teachings they want hospitals to follow do not allow abortion” since the Bishops’ Directives on health care ARE the Catholic teachings. And those directives, if properly followed (and I already granted they aren’t always followed) would allow an induction and delivery of a non-viable fetus, which is what I understand should have happened in the Irish hospital.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Gilliel: I agree with that. They have failed to make the legislative changes that would have clarified this situation and saved Savita’s life. That being the case, the law on the books stands, which would have imprisoned the doctors had they aborted Savita’s fetus before she had Septicemia.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 3:59 pm
I can see I’m outnumbered. I don’t think I’m being in the least bit dense or tricky here. I share all the vitriol everyone here has toward the church for this unfortunate woman’s unnecessary death. But I also think the anger of great many of you is significantly misplaced. Contrary to romanticized and unrealistic notions about religiosity in Ireland, the church does NOT run the place. Ireland is a modern, secular state, not a theocracy. The Irish state killed Savita, not the Catholic Church. Place blame where it belongs. Hold the state accountable, and pressure it to update its laws.
Gregory Greenwood:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
nolajim @ 190;
Given the vast social and indirect political power that the catholic church weilds in Ireland, it simply is not credible to describe it as ‘powerless’ in this context. The fact is that the church has the means to weild great influence over public policy in Ireland, and as of yet the legislature has shown little in the way of the neccessary will to change that state of affairs, in part because the political risk in doing so would be substantial. Until the legislature changes its stance, it will continue to effectively function as an agent of the vatican. The vatican is fully aware of this, and actively employs its available ‘soft power’ to push for policies and promote social attitudes that will lead to more tragedies such as this one.
It is not as though the idea that abortion is so morally objectionable that it is better to let an innocent woman die needlessly developed in a vacuum without any input from Rome.
d.f.manno:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:03 pm
@sastra (#150):
And I want the civil authorities to put this person in a cage until his bones turn to dust. And require anyone seeking a license to practice medicine in Ireland to visit that cage before getting the license.
Nick Gotts (formerly KG):
November 14th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Well it’s one or the other. It’s a plain fact that the law exists as it does because of the Catholic Church and that it has not been repealed because of the Catholic Church. Yes, politicians share some of the blame – because they have been too cowardly to stand up to the Catholic Church.
Ogvorbis: resident of Threadruptia (and broken):
November 14th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Did it ever occur to you that one of the major reasons the Irish state has not updated its laws is due to pressure, intense pressure including threats of excommunication (which is quite important to many Catholics), from the Catholic Church?
And machintelligence, all I can do is scream incoherently at my monitor.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh!!
dianne:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
Savita getting an abortion was completely legal under Irish law.
I can understand they’re feeling nervous about performing the abortion needed to save the patient’s life. The “pro-life” movement has no hesitation in bombing and shooting doctors who perform abortions, so I can see a “pro-life” country prosecuting doctors who perform abortions that are perfectly legal.
However, that’s no excuse. If you’re so scared of the possibility that you might be prosecuted for participating in a legal abortion that a patient needs to live that you can’t do it then you shouldn’t be an obstetrician. End of story. There are plenty of fields the doctors involved could go into instead and never have to worry about being prosecuted for saving a patient’s life again. For instance, I’ve never heard of a general surgeon getting death threats for performing a necessary appendectomy. Grow some backbone or get out of the field.
erichoug:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:05 pm
nolajim @#207. While I agree with you on the responsibility being largely with the Politicians, I believe that the Church bears at least as much if not more responsibility.
Also, why didn’t any of the doctors at the hospital just say “Fuck It” and save this poor woman’s life.From all the reports I have read, the doctors at the hospital seem to have been incredibly blase about this case. Can we punch them in the face along with the Church and the State?
mudpuddles:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:07 pm
FWIW, here’s some more info from a discussion on Irish radio this evening:
It may have been the case that the absolute medical need for an abortion in order to save Savita Halappanavar’s life was not established by the responsible care team. An abortion was requested by Savita and by her husband, and she was denied that abortion on the basis of it being illegal to give an abortion on demand i.e. that request was apparently dealt with in isolation and separate from the issue of her risk of septicaemia.
This raises two immediate questions in my mind. First, if it is true that the need for (or likely life-saving benefit of) an abortion was not established, then as Elsteth points out (comment #175) the medical practitioners involved were GROSSLY incompetent. If they could not immeditely identify and act to limit the significant risk of infection, magnified by the fact that Savita was miscarrying, then WTF???
Second, I can just about understand the rejection of a woman’s request for an abortion in a country where abortion on demand and in non-life threatening circumstances is very clearly illegal, BUT in this case, when they knew that the woman in question was in intense pain, miscarrying and at very real risk of death, why was her request and / or the possibility of terminating the pregnancy as a life-saving intervention not raised at the daily medical team briefings? And if it was raised at those meetings, then WT bloody F???????
It is impossible for me to see the whole sorry situation as a shining example of medical negligence and malpractice. I will go out on a limb here and suggest that the fact that Savita Halappanavar was Asian and Hindu made it easy (or easier) for some of the staff to dismiss her request – “she’s not Irish, she doesn’t understand our system”. I’m not implying that the staff are overtly racist – I have worked at UHG and I know of no-one on the staff who is; but I regret that Ireland is an appallingly racist country, and I would not be surprised if attitudes that are ultimately dismissive of others based on their ethnicity are as much a problem in the medical commmunity as everywhere else. Sorry if that offends anyone, but unfortunately it is a fact that in Ireland non-natives, and particularly non-European natives, are often treated with less respect, urgency or deference than “native” Irish people.
raven:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
Sure. No problem.
The Catholics are very good at making murderers into saints.
1. Cardinal Bellarimo, the guy who torched Bruno and almost torched Galileo is a saint. There is a college in Kentucky named after him. I’m sure they are very disciplined.
2. Saint Thomas More made his reputation by hunting down and killing heretics. And what goes around came around.
I’m sure if one looked further they could find more mass murderer Catholic “saints”.
Rodney Nelson:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:13 pm
nolajim,
What is your point? Is the Church completely blameless for Irish abortion laws? Is the Church totally to be blamed for the laws? Something in between? What exactly are you trying to say?
dianne:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:14 pm
I’m not implying that the staff are overtly racist – I have worked at UHG and I know of no-one on the staff who is; but I regret that Ireland is an appallingly racist country
I haven’t ever been to Ireland, much less worked there, but if it’s anything like the US…I’ve never seen anyone working in a US hospital make an overtly racist comment about patients. But I’ve seen a lot of people making dog whistle statements about immigrants. I find it highly likely that racism was a part of the problem.
markr1957 (Patent Pending):
November 14th, 2012 at 4:16 pm
I was 11 when my parents aborted the RCC. I didn’t know why for years after, but it was related to problems during the birth of my youngest sister which required my mother to either have a hysterectomy or die.
Our parish priest and local bishop decided it was contraception and mother was excommunicated while father was told that he and his children were still welcome at church – we never went again after that! Thanks to that decision my mother lived another 35 years.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
nolajim
A) So, you have magical superpowers that tell you that they would not only have been charged but also convicted
B) It seems clear that she already suffered from Septicemia while the fetus was still alive and they still refused to help her.
Because she didn’t develop it surprisingly in the 10 minutes after the fetus was dead.
No, you just go on making excuses.
Been there, done that. Really, lived there. Thankfully never became pregnant, yadda, yadda.
Yes, that’s why the care this woman got was more like you would expect in Afghanistan than say the UK
Yes, because the RCC never ever influenced Irish politics or politicians. Or people who voted in stupid referendums, for that matter. Never ever threatened anybody with hell. Sure, totally unrelated. That thing about “catholic country”, that’s just an individual’s misguided opinion.
Dianne
Not in Europe, so the excuse doesn’t stand
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Apparently the people in the hospital and Irish government are playing a particularly morbid game of pretend.
Contrary to your unwillingness to see the obvious, Catholicism can affect the law in a majority Catholic country without shoving the legislature full with cardinals and bishops.
dianne:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:19 pm
Ok, I think I see the problem. From Libby Anne’s blog: “A professor at the medical school attached to the hospital where she died recently organized a conference concluding that abortion is never medically necessary to save a woman’s life.”
Obstetricians at the hospital where she was (not) treated recently declared abortion to never be necessary to save a woman’s life. Then, a few weeks later, they were confronted by proof positive that their position was BS. I’m guessing that they fought the realization, claiming that she just needed antibiotics, that the abortion would happen spontaneously given enough time, that she was in no real danger, etc. Up until she died.
In short, they killed her to soothe their egos.
d.f.manno:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
@campbell (#171):
We don’t “shut ‘em down.” We turn them into publicly owned and operated hospitals. We remove all Catholic clerics from management. We require all medical staff to pledge as a condition of further employment to perform all legal medical treatment. If they don’t want to take the pledge, we’ll hold the door open for them as they leave. We take a negative and make it positive.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Rodney Nelson: I’m trying to say that you can blame the church all you want in this case, but that won’t change the church or its position. If we want to prevent a repeat of this travesty, we have to change Irish secular law, not the church. And contrary to the apparent beliefs of many here, Irish law is not written in Rome.
texasaggie:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
I spent 12 miserable years married to an Irish catholic, so I while I don’t understand the sick minds that are responsible for this vile behavior, I’m not surprised. The catholic church has absolutely no concern for the well-being of people. As far as the hierarchy and the “faithful” are concerned, common people are just something to be used for the glorification and advancement of the institution, and incidentally, the people high up on the ladder. Everyone else is mud on the soles of their shoes.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:24 pm
Then you should have no problem showing with citations the legislature giving the church the middle finger salute repeatedly on subjects the church holds very dear, proving their total independence.
No Light:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:25 pm
Nolajim
Her cervix was fully dilated and the amniotic sac was ruptured. The uterine cavity must be kept sterile, or chaos ensues. So her cervix is low and open, and what’s next to her vagina? Her anus. What lives in the gut? Dangerous enterotoxins like Eschericia coli.
So giant gaping wound, directly next to an area teeming with coliforms = death.
Colinfuckingforster
You know WHY he identified Lord McAlpine as his abuser? Because the fucking police told him that’s who it was, when he picked the photo out of a photo line-up.
Now why, why would they do that? I can’t think why. Certainly not to derail the investigation and throw suspicion on the abused, rather than the abusers. Nah, that can’t be it…
skeptifem
Are you being sarcastic here? Seriously?
If you’re being serious, then it sounds like MRA-type hyperskepticism of the kind levelled at women who’ve been raped.
Here’s the procedure:
Obs/gynae consultant on call picks up phone, calls theatre head nurse, asks “Is there a theatre free? I’ve got a 31 year old woman in need of an emergency D&C”
TTheatre nurse books him in, pages the on-call anaesthetist and any other staff.
Meanwhile, consultant’s SHO gets patient or NOK to sign consent forms.
Piece of fucking piss.
~No Light, formerly of the NHS.
sgailebeairt:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:26 pm
@mudpuddles –because as long as there was a fetal heartbeat, the d&c wld be “murder” in the eyes of the Church, like taking Terry schiavo off the feeding tube. Letting it die passively, & coincidentally letting Savita die around it, keeps their hands free of blood in their mind…. i used to study & teach theo before i couldnt stand the double think, i was a prolifer before i knew better, i know ALL the excuses…. they think “Double Effect” arguments will save them from Hell if they dont do any “active” harm…..
letting a woman die in agony isnt “doing harm” in their book….these are the same medical culture that made “symphysiotomy” a thing for irishwomen to suffer for so long (dont google it unless you have a REALLY strong stomach!!)
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:28 pm
You can say this about anything, really. Why criticize what you (probably) can’t change?
When are you going to stop insisting that we attack the symptoms instead of the disease? Just shut the fuck up and move along. You have nothing to say aside from reiterating that the Irish government, no matter how Catholicism soaked they may be, aren’t the Vatican. Thank you very fucking much for the geography lesson. But since we already knew that and you remain unable to imagine how it could be possible that Catholicism could still be to blame when there aren’t any Priests in the Legislature (Warning: Potential movie title), maybe you should come back when you have a clue?
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
Yes it was. The pregnancy was no longer viable. The fetus was going to die, and if nothing was done, so was the mother.
Please explain why you made such an idiotic comment. Are you stupid, a liar or just fucked in the head ?
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
By the way, the answer to “Why criticize what you (probably) can’t change?” is “Why fucking not.” It’s a worth a shot. And shouting down people for daring to try is fucking part of the problem.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
We don’t want to change it. We want it gone. And we think that showing the world what a horrible bunch of sick criminals they are is a way to achieve that.
If politicians are ashamed to declare their allegiance to the bunch of woman-killers and child-rapists we’ll have done a good thing in moving towards a free and truely secular society.
machintelligence:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:33 pm
Do you think that the fact that she requested a termination of pregnancy was held against her? There is no abortion on demand in Ireland. Also look at who taught at the hospital:
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0910/1224323797477.html
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Anteprepro: Granted we essentially disrespect one-another’s positions. But let’s try to be pragmatic here. If we go your route, addressing what you call the disease rather than the symptom, we’ll never accomplish anything. Neither you, nor I, nor a protest in Dublin is going to enlighten the church on abortion. Trying to “fix” the church merely reifies the problem. The more pressing problem is to prevent a repeat of this disaster, and that is going to happen many orders of magnitude faster if we concentrate on what Irish law says rather than on trying to change the Roman Catholic Church.
Rodney Nelson:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
noeljim #223
In other words, you’re stating and restating the obvious just in case the rest of us thought Benny Ratzi was the Taoiseach and another name for the Dáil Éireann was College of Cardinals.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Rodney Nelson: I might be stating the obvious, I’m not sure. It seems a great many commentators here seem to think exactly what you’ve just said, that Irish law is written by the Catholic Church. Failing that, they seem to think that what happened in this case was a matter of a doctor or a hospital imposing private religious beliefs on others, instead of accepting the fact that Irish law prohibited abortion in this case until it was far too late to save the mother. I think Irish law on abortion has to change. But in order to accomplish that, I wouldn’t waste any breath trying to alter or exterminate the RCC. I would concentrate more pragmatically on a secular political process. Certainly, there is now an opportunity for this.
mudpuddles:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:57 pm
@ sgailebeairt, # 227
Hi there sgailebeairt,
The church does not run the hospital. UHG is not run or owned by the Catholic church. The consultants involved are not under the direction of the church in their day to day activities.
I don’t doubt that at least some of the medical team involved may have been Catholic, nor do I doubt that their religious upbringing may have influenced the general outlook on abortion of any of those team members who are Catholic. But several surveys have indicated that the majority of Catholics in Ireland do not agree with a complete ban on abortion, and I would seriously doubt that all of the relevant senior staff at UHG would be so devout as to mutlilaterally and categorically dismiss any chance of abortion because of what the Pope says.
If it is true, as reported, that Savita was told that abortion was not possible because “this is a Catholic country”, then from my own experience I think that it was probably the dismissive statement of a nurse or junior staffer or otherwise a pig-ignorant consultant, who was responding not on a question of absolute medical need for a patient at critical risk, but rather to a question from an Asian Hindu who – in his or her mind – didn’t garner the same empathy and attention as a white Irish woman. Savita pleaded that she was not Irish and not Catholic, and I am afraid that the mental response was probably “Exactly, but you are in ireland now, so leave it to us to make the decisions thank you very much.”
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 4:59 pm
I see no evidence of that. Are you being dishonest again ?
What people here seem to think is that the RCC has historically had huge influence in Ireland, including in what legislation gets passed. The RCC might not have written the law on abortion, but it was clearly drawn up with the views of the RCC in mind.
Oh, and I asked you to explain why you lied about Suvita’s life not being in danger when she was first admitted. Your silence suggests you cannot explain your lack of honesty.
kieran:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2012/0419/breaking14.html
They could’ve changed the law back in April but were waiting for an “expert” report.They got that report yesterday…I wouldn’t hold my breath our politicians couldn’t find their arses with both hands without a second consultants report.
revjimbob:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:01 pm
It brings to mind Ed Brayton’s post about Secular Blasphemy – here in Scotland I could get arrested for saying this in public -
Fuck the Pope.
Rodney Nelson:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:02 pm
nolajim #235
Trust me, nobody thinks Irish law is written by the RCC. What we do believe is the RCC has a massive amount of influence on which laws are written and how they’re written. The X case was settled in 1992. For the past 20 years, the Dáil has failed to write a law conforming to the Supreme Court’s decision in that case.
Savita died despite the fact that the Irish Constitution allows for abortion in cases where the life of the pregnant woman is in danger. This right to life on the part of the woman has been affirmed by the electorate. Despite what the constitution says and what the Irish people have said, the has failed to enact legislation which would enforce the constitutional right and the will of the people.
The Dáil’s inaction is not because the TDs are being inattentive. Rather they’re afraid of the Catholic backlash over any law seen as liberalizing abortion. So don’t tell us the Catholic Church doesn’t have any influence on the Dáil. We’re not quite as ignorant as you seem to think we are.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Matt Penfold, I completely agree with you about the fuckwittery, but in all honesty, when she initially was admitted, her life was in fact not in acute danger. Had the miscarriage completed spontaneously – as they usually do – then she would have had a low risk of suffering severe harm. It was the failure of the miscarriage to complete that set everything else going.
But.
That the miscarriage was not completing spontaneously was apparent a day after she was admitted. At that moment, any halfway intelligent medical professional would have realized the immense risk she was in.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
Beatrice @168:
Perhaps we should direct all stupid sacks of shit out of this thread and over to the Thunderdome. It’s been so quiet over there. No chewtoys to practice teeth sharpening on.
That would leave this thread for those with empathy and reading skills.
mudpuddles:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
@ Rodney, #240
Agreed. The religious lobby here is still massive and very influential, but thankfully becoming smaller and weaker. I reckon the main reaosn for persistent Dáil inaction is fear of the backlash from the church and faith-based organisations. I could be wrong, but I don’t ever remember any one of the three main political parties ever categorically accepting as an element of party policy that a formal statutory response to the X Case, as recently demanded by the European Court of Human Rights, should be enacted.
sgailebeairt:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
@mudpuddles don’t you know this is the same hospital that had that symposium that just came out with the “news” that women NEVER need an abortion to save their lives?? an institution doesnt have to have “owned by Rome” on the deed to be under the influence of Catholicism…. if all the drs & nurses are catholics who think that obeying Rome is more imprtnt than ‘man’s laws” then good luck getting an abortion, a vasectomy, an iud, a prescription for the Pill, anything that is “contrary to Catholic morals & Teaching”
http://www.personhoodusa.com/news/medical-symposium%E2%80%99s-findings-abortion-never-necessary-%E2%80%9Clife-mother%E2%80%9D-%E2%80%98exceptions%E2%80%99-substantiate-p
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
campbell @171:
I assumed by the title of this post, that PZ was talking about shutting down the Catholic Church, not hospitals.
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Thanks for the correction.
nolajim, I owe you an apology for saying you lied about that. Now all you have to explain is your claim we all think the RCC writes Irish law.
barbyau:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Shorter apologists for the Church: Just because the Church used to be heavily involved in the government and public institutions, and most of the people who are in government are Catholic, there is simply no way to correlate the abortion laws of Ireland and the Catholic Church.
People who say that culture matters, frequently invoke faith as being a foundation of our culture, somehow can’t see how things in our culture are a shaped by religious belief. Yet another example of having it both ways.
Religion is the basis for all of this rule of law stuff. Except for when it isn’t.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:12 pm
I hope that this case forces the Dáil to finally enact laws pursuant to the X case. And maybe go further. And maybe start rolling back the absurd influence of the Church in Ireland.
sgailebeairt:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:12 pm
btw almost VP paul Ryan sponsored a similar legislation under the guise “conscience clause” as described here
http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2012/08/rep-paul-ryan-s.html
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:14 pm
The link you posted says the symposium took place in Dublin, which is the other side of the country to Galway.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:17 pm
nolajim:
And what could possibly be influencing their less than rational behavior?
Nah. Couldn’t be the influence of the Raping Children Church. Must be something else.
sgailebeairt:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:21 pm
sorry organizer was a professor from Galway, libby Anne has details here
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/2012/11/pro-lifers-play-fast-and-loose-with-the-life-of-the-mother-exemption.html
dianne:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Do you think that the fact that she requested a termination of pregnancy was held against her?
Yes.
mudpuddles:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
@ sgailebeairt, #244
Wrong again. That symposium was in Dublin, which is on the exact opposite side of the country to Galway, where Savita died.
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.
In the same way that Answers in Genesis likes to claim that it is a scientific organisation because it is includes scientists as members, the Committee for Excellence in Maternal Healthcare and its “symposia” claim to argue from authority based on including “medical experts” in their ranks. Which is a bunch of arse, as we say over here.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:26 pm
nolajim:
You *are* being dense, because you fail to understand that the antiquated and wrong headed views of the Church have *clearly* influenced the attitudes of those in power in Ireland. Why else would there be a law on the books that only allows for abortion in the case of a threat to the life of the mother? There is no secular reason to deny a woman the right to bodily autonomy. Catholicism would like people to think there’s a good reason to deny that right to women, but Catholic teaching is all about denying women full status as human being all the while elevating fetuses to a level of humanity that their birthing chambers don’t benefit from.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
The anti-choice fuckwits are already out in force to obscure what happened here. Libby Anne links to a bit of blather [NOTE: FUCKWITTED ANTI-CHOICE RHETORIC] about how this was totes tragic, but her lack of an abortion isn’t what killed her.
Instead, either it was the failure of the doctors to administer antibiotics in a timely fashion that killed her, or some heretofore unknown thing.
There was, however, an incredibly telling comment:
So…she needed to not be pregnant any more. Right?
chigau (棒や石):
November 14th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Ireland is post-catholic in the same way that the USA is post-racist.
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:35 pm
I don’t think Ireland has yet reached the same level of post-Catholicism as the US has of post-racism. At least in the US the law has been changed to reflect more modern attitudes to race, although practice still lags far behind. Ireland has not even reached the stage of being able to remove the effects of Catholicism on its laws.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:37 pm
nolajim:
So in addition to being dense, you can’t read for shit.
No one has said Irish law is written by the Catholic Church.
We’ve been saying the Catholic Church has a strong influence on those in power in Ireland. Significant enough influence that Catholic “teachings” directly impacted abortion laws in the country.
Why else would Ireland have an anti abortion law? It’s certainly not for secular reasons.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:40 pm
mudpuddles @236:
from PZ’s link (emphasis added):
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Strictly speaking Ireland has never passed a law on abortion. When it gained independence from the rest of the UK in 1922 the new state adopted the laws in force in the UK (and applicable to Ireland) in force at the time. Most of the laws so adopted have been repealed, replaced or amended since. However the The Offences against the Person Act 1861 which covered abortion has never been amended in respect of the clauses relating to abortion.
So it is not such us thinking the RCC wrote the Irish law but rather the RCC has been instrumental in the failure to amended the law in 90 years.
A. R:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:47 pm
A frog’s heart will beat for up to two hours after you destroy its nervous system, and 20 minutes after you cut it out if its body. Is the frog still “alive” in any meaningful sense after you destroy its brain an spinal cord, let alone remove its heart? Oh, yeah: FUCK YOU CATHOLIC CHURCH!
mudpuddles:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:48 pm
@ Tony, #260
Thanks mate, that statement you highlight is what I’ve based my suspicions on.
campbell:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
@ d.f. manno (#222): Sold. I can get behind that plan.
@ tony, QDO (#245): Yup. I over-focused on the don’t let the church run hospitals part; my bad. I’m on board with shutting down the RCC. As it stands, ex-Catholics are the 2nd largest “denomination” in the U.S. The RCC’s pivot even further to the Right is gonna eventually kill it in the U.S. Not soon enough for my taste. And not soon enough–most importantly–for the people’s whose lives are at risk. Time for “cultural” and “Progressive” Catholics to admit they’re enablers/collaborators.
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 14th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
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.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
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. Yes, the Church deserves plenty of blame here (which I said repeatedly, although a few seem not to have noticed at all). But the state is the immediate culprit. The state wrote/maintained the law that required the doctors not to perform an abortion in this case. Yes the church should be criticized for that, but if you want to prevent a recurrence, you’ve got to get the state to change its law. Trying to change or eliminate the church or at least its influence, however laudable, is a process that will take decades, perhaps centuries.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:06 pm
nolajim:
And how do you propose that be accomplished when they’re so strongly influenced by Catholic teachings?
By Thor you’re being dense. The Church should get the lion’s share of the blame because it’s their fault that odious laws regarding abortion are on the books to begin with. What’s a secular argument against a woman’s right to bodily autonomy? Oh, that’s right:
THERE ISN’T ONE.
Women aren’t treated with full rights to bodily autonomy because of the impact of Church teachings. If we want to prevent a recurrence, we have to eliminate the influence of the Church by convincing/persuading people that the teachings are wrong. Or at the very least by convincing/persuading people that laws should be based on empirically testable evidence rather than 2000 year old wishful thinking.
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Did you not bother asking yourself why no Irish Government has introduced a bill to amend the law on abortion ? Do you think there will be opposition, and if so, who do you think will be leading that opposition ? Yes, the Irish parliament need to change the law, but please acknowledge the firestorm that will ensue when they try to do so, and who will be to blame for that firestorm.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:11 pm
Dear Fossilfishy:
I have not done anything that even remotely implies any kind of dichotomy, false or true, which you would realize if you had actually read what I wrote above. Yes, the church is culpable, AS I HAVE SAID. But it was the power of the state, not the church that directed the doctors’ actions. If they performed an illegal abortion, they faced life in prison. That is the power of the state, not the church. And given the (poor) state of Irish law on abortion, what little gray area there was in this particular case was not enough for them to rely on in hopes of avoiding prosecution. WORK TO CHANGE THE LAW, and leave the church to find its own way to oblivion
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:13 pm
Nolajim, yes the fucking state should have done something about their draconian laws.
But: the Church is why they have not.
Odd parallel here!
Savita died of septicemia. She got septicemia because she didn’t have an abortion.
The state has failed to enact basic laws. They have failed to do so because of the Church.
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:14 pm
Actually, the blame should be because they are still on the books. The RCC had little to do with the introduction of the law, as it was a law passed at Westminster in 1861. RCC influence at Westminster was not strong at the time.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
WHO is being dense?? Yes, you are all right: the church is a HUGE stumbling block to getting Irish abortion laws updated. But: 1) it is still the laws of Ireland you have to change, not the laws of the church and 2) the power of the church is not insurmountable. This case is a huge opportunity. Now stop complaining about the damned church and start working on the secular political process to change the law!
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
Ah. So nolajim thinks that this:
is absolving the Irish State of responsibility.
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:18 pm
To change the law the influence of the RCC needs to be further curtailed, otherwise the parliamentary votes may not be there to get the law passed. The RCC is the impediment to changing to the law, and for you to claim otherwise is laughable.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:19 pm
Yeah, “the legislators just need to stand up to the RCC!” is not really a fix. They should, of course, but so long as the RCC holds as much influence as it does, such a course of action is untenable.
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:19 pm
You are.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:20 pm
CASE IN POINT: quoting from the Irish Times today: “Niamh Uí Bhriain of the Life Institute said the loss of Ms Halappanavar’s life was not caused by Ireland’s ban on abortion, and it was “very sad to see abortion campaigners rush to exploit this case”.
“We need to ensure that mothers and babies are best protected, and abortion is not part of best medical practice. It is medieval medicine,” she said.”
THERE is no doubt that the opinions of Ms. O’Brian and the Life Institute are due directly to the RCC. But look at what she said. She has not quoted scripture or Papal bulls. She is playing a game, trying to appear more scientific and secular than she really is. And if you think about that for a moment, you realize that what that means is that EVEN SHE realizes that the matter is ultimately going to be decided on a secular basis rather than a religious one.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:22 pm
Esteleth, I’m not sure how you could possibly characterize my remarks as you just did. I’m clearly arguing in favor of holding the state accountable.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:23 pm
Nolajim, where are you getting the idea that the RCC has little influence in Ireland and that it is an easy thing to defy it? It may well be weaker than in the past (the child-raping scandal has helped, surely), but it is not weak.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Esteleth: I AGREE WITH YOU: The influence is the church in Ireland is strong. I’ve never said otherwise.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:26 pm
Nolajim, you seem to be categorizing our (mine and others here) comments critiquing the RCC as absolving the state.
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Since her characterization seems fair, I imagine she could do so quite easily.
Is there some reason you could not work that you for yourself ?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
When the given reason was “we are a catholic coubntry” you’re really farting on about how the church isn’t to blame, Nolakim ?
You are za horrible fucking person. Also I hate my phone
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:29 pm
Um…. am I reading #273 wrong?? Esteleth there appears to me to say I’m trying to absolve the state. Which is exactly the opposite of EVERYTHING I’ve written above (if you’ve paid any attention at all)
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
You have been saying it is not the reason the law in Ireland has not been changed. You have been making that point a lot.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:30 pm
Nolajim, you are reading my 273 exactly backwards. You have been saying that me saying that the RCC’s influence on Irish law is horrific is an act of absolving the state of responsibility.
Also, you appear to be a moron.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Ing:Intellectual — Please address the reality of the discussion. I have by no means said that the church isn’t to blame.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Nolajim seems to be of the belief that:
1. The RCC’s influence in Ireland is strong,
2. The RCC has antediluvian views on a whole matter of shit, but
3. The Irish State’s laws have little to do with either (1) or (2).
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Gonna call nolajim as catholic…anyone else taking bets?
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Look, if you’re going to criticize me, please read what I actually wrote instead of the preceding seven misquotes and mischaracterizations made by other not-very-perceptive bloggers here.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:33 pm
I have a theory that we’re secretly debating Bobby Jindal, Ing.
John Morales:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
nolajim, you’re neither equivocating nor confusing the proximate with the ultimate cause — you’re ignoring it.
I quote Giliell @231 with my own due emphasis:
“We don’t want to change it. We want it gone. And we think that showing the world what a horrible bunch of sick criminals they are is a way to achieve that.
If politicians are ashamed to declare their allegiance to the bunch of woman-killers and child-rapists we’ll have done a good thing in moving towards a free and truely secular society.”
A touch hyperbolic and conflates the institution with its members, but nonetheless addresses what you ignore, presumably because you find it impractical — but a less modest aspiration than yours.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:34 pm
Really, Nolajim? Care to explain just what the relationship is between the RCC, its views on matters, and the current state of Irish law?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Nolajim I read you just fine asshole. Everything you’ve said is trying to soften the blow on mother church. I’m not an idiot and I don’t think for one second you’re as moronic as you’re acting
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
What you have been saying is that whilst you agree that the RCC is the major obstruction to changing the law, the problem does not lie with the RCC but the Irish Parliament’s inability to get to grips with the issue. It is nonsense of course, because you seem incapable of understanding why the Irish Parliament has been so reluctant to do. The path to getting the law changed requires dealing with the RCC, which is something you do not want done.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
Now that’s funny. Me, Catholic. No.. I’m just a realist. I detest religious involvement with secular affairs. But religion isn’t the only evil in the world. Often, anti-religious people (of which I am one), in their rush to blame religion for everything, fail to see the plainly obvious: that sometimes worldly money, and power are the real sources of conflict, and sometimes religion is just a convenient set of labels to layer on top of that. This has certainly been an example of that. The church has been evil in its influence on the matter, but don’t let the secular state off the hook because of that.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
Good!
True enough.
No it isn’t. Idiot.
HOW ARE WE LETTING THE STATE OFF THE HOOK!? WE CAN CRITICIZE THE RCC FOR INFLUENCING THE STATE AND THE STATE FOR BEING INFLUENCED SIMULTANEOUSLY.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Nolajim you’re not fooling anyone.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Ing: I think you just proved my point at #294. All you can think of is blaming the church. And I AGREE it deserves blame. But stop using your rage as an excuse not to change the world for the better. Fix this problem. Change Irish Law. That CAN be done by a secular political process, in spite of the tremendous influence of the church. If you want to accomplish nothing, than continue clinging to your anti-church rage, and by all means go piss into the wind.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
The influence of the church is WHAT IS STOPPING the secular political process. So long as the church holds in the influence it does, it WILL CONTINUE TO HOLD UP SECULAR PROGRESS.
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:44 pm
No one is letting the state off of the hook, except in your head.
That the reason the state has not changed the law is because it does not want to deal with the shitstorm that will come its way when it tries to, and the chief protagonists in that shitstorm will be the RCC. Therefore when you claim we should not concentrate on the RCC if we want the law changed you are are arguing against getting the law changed.
You are simply not being honest if you claim you want to see the law changed but do not want to see the RCC challenged.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
In other words, if we want progress in the secular political realm, we must lessen the RCC’s power and influence. And the only way to do that is to directly confront it.
John Morales:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
nolajim:
… therefore, it’s an evil that doesn’t merit opposition?
(Your argumentative armamentarium is meagre that you resort to that)
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
I cannot see how it can be put any clearer than this. If nolajim still cannot grasp the point, I doubt he ever can. We might just have to accept we are past the limits of his intellectual capacity.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
At this point, I think nolajim is a disingenuous fuck. It’s been explained multiple times to hir that the problem is the tremendous influence the RCC has over the Irish government. It’s been pointed out to hir that as long as the RCC wields the power it does, that it will be difficult to change the laws. Yet xe still argues that what’s needed is changing the law. How can xe not understand that Catholic beliefs are at the root of the problem?
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
Matt, I think nolajim – for all his (and somehow, I’m pretty sure that nolajim is male) asserted non-religiosity, has a soft spot in his heart for the RCC, and they must be protected. Maybe he’s a Stedmanite.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:50 pm
Matt @304:
You’re right.
At this point, nolajim is one of those shrieking trolls in a tornado.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
That was obvious from its early attempts to deflect responsibility from the church to the state. And it hasn’t shown that the state is utterly independent of church influence. It loses with every post not showing that implicit claim.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 6:51 pm
I refuse to believe anyone is this stupid. You don’t gice a shit about changing the world qasshole everyhting you said ammounts to “let up on the church”! Seriously go fuck yourself
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
I do feel I’ve accomplished a little something here. At least we’ve got to the point where several of us are admitting that both the church and state deserve some blame here, which is no more and no less than I said in the beginning and have said all along (in spite of the refusal of some posters here to read what I actually wrote).
You go confront your church. Shout at it. Scream. Knock yourself out. While you’re wasting your time and resources, some of us will be circulating petitions, speaking to groups, getting out the vote, and otherwise engaging in real-world activities that might actually change the law to prevent a recurrence of this tragedy. However often the church and its position will come up in those discussions, it is ultimately the secular political process that will change things, and not the wasted energy of church-obsessed whiners.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Esteleth:
I was thinking much the same thing about nolajim’s apologies for the Catholic Church.
(and yes, if you’re reading this, nolajim, you’re making excuses for the Church; they’re the real problem, as we’ve been trying to tell you, but you refuse to recognize).
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
*facepalm*
Now stick the flounce, Cupcake.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:53 pm
Nolajim, cite the laws where the legislature has contradicted major church beliefs in order to prove it is independent of church influence. Or it is under church influence, and you lose until it is no longer under that influence. Show (don’t tell) how that must happen….
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
And let us not forget that until recently, the influence of the RCC was such that any attempt to change the law would almost certainly have failed.
The child abuse scandals have diminished the church’s influence, but it still retains a large amount of influence, especially outside of the major urban areas. Any attempt to change the law is not going to get an easy passage, and it would take up a lot of parliamentary time. It could not be done with the backing of the governing party. Ireland is also facing a serious economic crisis, which is also taking up a considerable amount of parliamentary time.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
Nolajim, please explain how secular progress can happen in the presence of a powerful force working directly to impede said progress.
John Morales:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:55 pm
nolajim:
Epitome of a false dichotomy, that is.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:56 pm
nolajim:
No, you don’t get to claim a win.
While some people (myself included) have said that the state bears responsibility, the ultimate blame lays with the Church, because their teaching is what has created the horrible situation where a woman was denied a life saving abortion. The laws on the books are there because of the Raping Children Church. Until their power and influence is diminished (preferably eliminated–peaceably), it’s going to be difficult to effect much secular change. The organization you’re protecting will fight tooth and nail with its *considerable* resources, power and influence to keep the status quo as it is. They want women to be second class citizens without full autonomy.
Matt Penfold:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
OK, my work here is done. Good night all.
Anri:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
What secular reason does Ireland have for its stance on abortion?
If the answer is “Um, gee, none at all”, than we can safely settle the matter of the source of the stance, and the source of the majority of the opposition to any change in that stance, yes?
I wonder if there would be any way to figure out what that mysterious influence might be? If only there was some… secret society, perhaps a large and wealthy group, of which a substantial portion of the populace considered themselves members, and which held itself up as the source for moral guidance for everyone, members and otherwise and had a well-known and well-established policy on the issue at hand?
Why, we’d assume that mysterious society was the reason for the law, wouldn’t we?
Now… what if that society wasn’t secret?
This is why people are calling you dense.
Anri:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Um, right, because outside pressure has never caused any church to change its stance on anything.
That’s why Galileo is still under house arrest, there’s no such thing as a black Mormon, and no Catholics use birth control.
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 14th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
nolajim Fuck you’re dense. Your continued insistence that we preferentially blame the legislature, despite many and varied comments agreeing with you that the legislature in indeed blameworthy, doesn’t resemble a false dichotomy? Really?
And now you’re implying that one can’t oppose the church and actively work to change the law. What is it with you and binary thinking? I beginning to worry that if the stupid in your comments becomes any denser they will begin to bend light.
At this point the only reason I can see you continuing this line of argument is a desire to be validated as being correct. Using a woman’s torture death as a means to ego gratification through rhetoric is contemptible. Fuck off.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
nolajim,
I’ve quoted Voltaire previously: “If they can make you believe absurdities, they can make you commit atrocities.”
And no, while the Catlick church has no official role in Ireland, Ireland is still a Catlick country, because its people are overwhelmingly Catlick. It is the absurd beliefs of the people that lead to the absurd laws of the nation that lead to the atrocities.
Remedy the absurd beliefs, and the laws can change. However, the church will fight tooth and nail over every inch of the country. They will fight as if their life depended on it–because it does.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Which is not likely to happen around here.
Perhaps at a Catholic blog, but here, where people value the lives and desires of women…nope.
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 14th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Indeed Tony. One of the many reasons I love it here.
Mr. Fire:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Ha!
We’re all getting mad at the RCC in a thread.
It therefore follows that we will all lose sight of the goal of pursuing legislative change.
Unless nolajim saves us with revelations many of us had considered obvious.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Hey.
Chew toy go bye bye?
Waaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!
No Light:
November 14th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
I’m a tad behind on things, but is “NolaJim” the same prattling arsecarbuncle as “Noelplum aka Jim”?
It seems annoyingly familiar.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
No, I am not Noelplum, etc., Thank you.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:16 pm
I don’t want to try to rob anyone of their justified rage. Many here might have good reason for the hatred of the church. 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. Confront the church if its part of your individual recovery from a personal injustice. Work to change or eradicate the church if you’re really willing to expend multiple life-times on such efforts. But if you’re concerned about a situation like Savita’s, and you want to make a difference before the time of your great-grandchildren, work for change at the secular level.
CONSIDER The following letter to the Irish Times
A chara, – I first learned of the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar over one week ago. It made me both ashamed and angered to be Irish. Ultimately what angered me most was that this was both a preventable and predictable death.
She died because successive governments have neglected to legislate for the 1992 Supreme Court common law ruling, permitting abortion if “real and substantial risk” to the life of the mother is present.
She died because my profession have not been sufficient advocates for women in these situations. She died because reportedly she was told we are a “Catholic country” when we are in fact secular. She died because our nation chooses not to listen to Human Rights Watch, the European Court of Justice, Amnesty International and internationally published research (including my own research published in September 2012, in the European Journal of General Practice, highlighting many cases when mothers with real and substantial risk to their lives were forced to travel abroad for termination of pregnancy).
She died needlessly.
I cannot imagine the pain and suffering experienced by her family. – Is mise,
Dr MARK MURPHY GP,
Strandhill,
Sligo.
Rodney Nelson:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Okay, nolajim, you’ve done your best to ease the Catholic Church out of the limelight. Go tell your priest you gave it a good try, I’m sure he’ll give you an extra Hail Mary the next time you go to confession. IOW, I don’t believe you when you pretend you’re not a Catholic.
John Morales:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
[meta]
nolajim:
Surely your obtuseness is wilful.
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
What part of “false dichotomy” don’t you understand? You’ve managed to say the same thing over and over and haven’t been able to absorb what people have said in response to you at all. Congratulations on being a fuckwit.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:38 pm
nolajim:
I dare say if anyone gives proper thought to the actions of the Raping Children Chruch, most people on the planet have a reason to hate them.
My god you’re a dimwitted, disingenuous, duckshart.
How can you not understand that the teachings of the Church have directly led to the laws that you’re arguing need to be changed?
How can you not understand that trying to change the law is going to be exceptionally difficult because of the Catholic Church?
How can you be so thickheaded as to not understand that your binary thinking (as rightly called out by FossilFishy) is wrong headed?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
Nope, your excuses are directed in impratical directions. You still haven’t presented evidence that the legislature in Ireland isn’t under the thumb of the RCC. That is because such evidence doesn’t exist, and you know that.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
Nolajim does not seem to believe that it is possible to sign petitions, march, call legislatures and otherwise agitate for change AND criticize the church simultaneously.
rorschach:
November 14th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
I would be interested to know whether any of the medical staff involved in this matter(also, in this bizarre conference where it was falsely proclaimed that abortion never saves the life of the mother that was linked above) graduated from Catholic universities.
I have long been convinced that doctors who study at religious universities are unfit for medical practice, in particular in areas like O&G where religious dogma and belief may influence necessary medical decisions.
Here in Australia medical students can study at Catholic unis, for example at Notre Dame in Sydney, and their core curriculum consists of lessons in catholic ethics and theology. Catholic universities operate under restrictions set by the RCC, such as Pope JP II’s “APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II ON CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES”, which contains stuff like this:
Given this kind of indoctrination, I am not surprised that we see outcomes like the one at Galway. These people are unfit to practice, and the Consultant who told this patient about Ireland being “a catholic country” needs to be removed from office.
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 14th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
Ah well, until nolajim condescends to give us xe’s explanation of why this must, must I tell’s yah, be an issue where two courses of action cannot be pursued, let me indulge in my own bit of false dichotomy:
nolajim: Sooper-sekrit Catlick liar for Jeebuz.
OR
nolajim: Egotistical douchetouque who must be right at all costs.
Surely a harder choice has never been posited?
rorschach:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
So I see(via Ophelia) that one of the organizers of this conference was this guy:
A hardcore godbotherer if the available info can be believed. If that guy is in charge of O&G there, that would explain a lot.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Well, I’m not sure, FossilFishy. While I think I’m making a valid point, I don’t feel a need to be right at the expense of facing reality, and I certainly am not saying you can’t BOTH criticize the church AND take political action (Anteprepro: you’re the one creating the false dichotomy, not me: I have all along admitted that there is blame for both). We can certainly agree that, in theory, there is room for both, although I have some reservations about a single person’s ability actually to DO both.
And I really don’t see why I’m being accused of being pro-Catholic or pro-Church or even pro-Religion merely for calling attention to some of the more obvious neuroses we’re tripping over here.
I am reacting to the extensive anti-church rhetoric I’ve seen in these comments, not because they criticize the church, but because they’ve tended to let the Irish state off the hook too much. I realize that doesn’t apply to everyone here.
Why does it bother me?
#1: Because by making this an issue about the church, one is making it an issue of religion, and that makes it much more likely that the church will win. You can’t win on their home court, at least not in the short term. 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.
#2: Because it seems to demonstrate a peculiar notion of modern Ireland as too much liken the Ireland your (Americans) great-great-grandparents emigrated from. Yes the church is an obstacle to progress in Ireland. But modern Ireland *is* a secular state, not a bunch of farmers who still believe in fairies or things that go bump in the night.
Jadehawk:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:25 pm
from the OP:
from a skimming of the first dozen comments:
conclusion: nolajim can’t or won’t read.
Jadehawk:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
some of us are fighting this fight for the long term, as well as the short term.
LOL
someone explain to nolajim how the internet works, because he(?) seems to think he’s the only non-American on it.
Mr. Fire:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:32 pm
nolajim, you continue to dismiss the notion that people are able to hate the church and act for change at the same time.
You stubbornly, inexplicably persist in your groundless insinuation that we far too busy yelling at the church to do anything practical. Not only is this not true, but even if it were true, it still wouldn’t be correct.
This whole time…you’ve been beating a strawman while thinking you had something original to say.
Koshka:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
You appear to be going for the “stupid Americans dont know shit” argument. Many people here are not American.
Also the 2011 census showed that 84% of Irish population is Catholic.
They may as well believe in fairies.
Also please refrain from using mental health insults in your comments. It makes you look like an arsehole.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
nolajim:
Really?
Where?
I think you’re a liar.
You’ve been ignoring reality this entire thread. It’s like you live in an alternate reality. Are you a Catholic Republican?
It’s been pointed out repeatedly to you that the Catholic Church’s influence is significant enough to affect legislation in Ireland.
You’ve had multiple people inform you that the very secular laws you want to change are going to be fought tooth and nail by the RCC.
You have failed-utterly-to grasp the simple fact that the Roman Catholic Church holds tremendous sway in the political arena in Ireland (and around the world for that matter). You continue with this simple minded attitude that the proper thing to do is change the law-while failing to realize where lawmakers are getting their “values” from.
You’ve been saying your same crap over and over, as if you’re right at the expense of facing reality.
You can’t see it because you’re closing your eyes. Try opening them up and reading for comprehension.
You’re making excuses for the Catholic Church. You say on the one hand that they bear responsibility, but by the rest of your insipid words, you don’t hold them accountable. You hold the government accountable. As if the Church doesn’t influence them at all. As if the laws could be changed without the Church fighting back with their not-inconsiderable resources.
One more time:
This *is* an issue of religion.
There is no secular reason to deny a woman the right to bodily autonomy.
The reason to deny women the right to an abortion is rooted in
R-E-L-I-G-I-O-N. That “reason” is based upon the superstitious wishful thinking of bronze age goat herders who knew jack shit about the world and how it works. That superstitious wishful thinking has carried over into the 21st century, well beyond its shelf life. That superstitious wishful thinking has influenced laws across the entire planet. Including laws in Ireland. If you’re going to fight against anti-abortion laws, you’re going to fight against the Catholic Church. You’re seeing part of the problem, but you’re not seeing the root of it.
You refuse to accept that the Christianity is like 2000 year old spoiled milk. It’s GIGO.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Jadehawk @341:
Given his reading comprehension skills, how many syllables should we stick to with our explanation?
John Morales:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
nolajim:
So you foolishly condemn the one whilst advocating for the other because of these reservations.
There’s an adage: “Intent isn’t magic”.
What you intend is not necessarily what you achieve; and what you do is a de facto apologia for the Church and its influence when you decry activism against it because you have reservations as to whether that also allows for policy advocacy.
(But still you persevere at ostensibly failing to grasp this simple point)
We’re acknowledging it rather than making it, isn’t it, and how so?
There’s observation of (and reaction to) the reality of “modern Ireland”*, yes — Pharynguloids do not deny reality.
(Perhaps there’s how it seems to you, and there is what is, and the two aren’t fully congruent)
–
* Woman died in agony over several days because the perceived sacredness of a doomed fetus overrode the reality of that woman’s life.
(Fact)
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
sorry, running a 102 fever atm. can’t think straight enough to even answer one question.
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:40 pm
If pointing out that religion is to blame for an atrocity is playing to religion’s strengths, then we are fucked. Game fucking over. Might as well just find a bunker and wait for the fundies to bring us back to the Stone Age.
As if ignoring the religious influence will make it go away. As if people don’t walk away from the debate as soon as it gets “political” either.
America is a secular state as well. As much as that helps. As has been explained to you, a country doesn’t need to be a theocracy for the religious elements of society to affect its “secular” laws.
Fucking idiot. You are the one who just wrote this:
You are the one saying “either fight the church or fight the government”. You are the one bringing up the Irish government in order to say that criticism of the church is either inaccurate or ineffective. You are the fucking moron denying your own words and pretending we don’t notice. Just fuck off.
Mr. Fire:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Ok. I’m losing faith in your integrity, nolajim.
You originally said:
To which anteprepro replied:
You write respectably well, but in reality, you either lack reading comprehension or you are a liar.
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
of note is that this same fuckhead, John, has appeared on most of the other blogs (i count him on 8 so far) to say the same thing.
… but he seems to be one of the few that are saying this, which tells me that he is likely just a fucking troll, not even a concern troll.
Mr. Fire:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
Um, sorry to be your echo chamber, anteprepro.
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
if there was no church, Irish legislators would be knuckle biting over having to pander to it.
so, no, the proper focus IS the church, and HOW WE GET RID OF IT ENTIRELY.
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
…and yet there are OBGYNs associated with the hopital in question who are ON RECORD saying that there is NEVER ANY NEED FOR AN ABORTION FOR HEALTH REASONS.
now, if we focus on the state… HOW DOES THAT FIX THIS?
it doesn’t. The problem clearly lies with the religious dogma that has fucked up these people’s minds so badly, likely because of severe compartmentalization, that they no longer are able to not just make sound decisions on healthcare, but even make sense!
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
fixed.
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
I think everything needs to be repeated for him anyway, in order for it to have a chance to pierce through his thick skull.
However:
We both may have misunderstood the sheer magnitude of nolajim’s stupidity. He followed that statement with this:
I see now how he is denying the false dichotomy: He is not denying that he said one can only either protest the church OR protest the government; he is denying that someone could actually do both. He is not denying using a false dichotomy, he is denying that the dichotomy is false. Because it is unthinkable that one could oppose religion for its influence on politics, while also opposing the actual politics that were the impetus for opposing religion in the first place. I mean, it’s not like there isn’t a certain brand of Atheism, invented by someone on Freethoughtblogs, bearing a certain mathematical symbol, displayed on the right-hand side of this very blog, that is specifically about that kind of thing. Nope, to nolajim, it is damn near impossible to both oppose the church for the way it fucks up politics, and to oppose the actual fucked-up politics.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
Until the church says “Ignore RCC dogma in your votes”, and means it, the church needs full force of our scorn compared to the wimpy state. Why can’t you acknowledge that? Oh, that’s right, you have no point or evidence, just OPINION absolving the church of any wrongdoing. Even if the wrongdoing is pressuring the legislature to vote for church dogma….
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 9:58 pm
I often wonder sometimes if Henry VIII had the right idea…
maybe a repeat?
sack the church and kick them the fuck out of ALL of the UK.
Mr. Fire:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
Good luck with your fever, Ichthyic.
Sure hope it’s not those brain-eating protozoa.
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Sure hope it’s not those brain-eating protozoa.
naw, haven’t been to taupo in months…
;)
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Well, Henry VIII really didn’t want to kick the Catholics out, he simply wanted to make himself head of the church. And bone Anne Boleyn.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Yes, I’m calling your activist bluff. For those who claim they can complain about the church AND take practical, secular action, I send praise and urge you to do it, and do it now. The reality is that few of you will do both. Most of you will do neither. You will vent your rage at the church on blogs, which is fine for you. But you won’t directly confront the church, work to change its policies from within, or take real-world action to stamp it out. And if you did (more praise), results won’t come in that battle for generations. At the same time, you won’t engage in the grass-roots political activism that is necessary to change Ireland’s abortion laws, even though the problem is one that has been part of the Irish political conscience for 20 years and a perfect test case has been handed over to you.
I don’t know any of you personally, and will be happy to be wrong about this. I am, however, projecting on the basis of experience both at blogging and at political field work.
Amphiox:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:06 pm
Executing your wife on trumped up charges because her uterus didn’t produce a child of the gender you wanted?
Kicking one church out only to replace it with another that is basically the same except for a few minor details doesn’t really fix the problem….
Mr. Fire:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:07 pm
If nolajim signs off with a declaration of victory, or a Romneyesque re-assertion of the same discredited strawmen, or another passive-aggressive swipe at people’s potential traumatic experiences, everyone who reads this will owe me $50.
Amphiox:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:08 pm
nolajim, please take your holier-than-thou preaching and stuff it.
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:11 pm
Kicking one church out only to replace it with another that is basically the same except for a few minor details doesn’t really fix the problem….
LOL
yeah, maybe I’m thinking of the modern Anglican church more than the historical one.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Fuckwitted illiterate idjit, we are atheists. We don’t work from within a religion. Only fuckwitted delusional liars and bullshitters like yourself pretend that. You haven’t shown that the church isn’t influencing the legislature. Therefore, the church can a will be criticized for imposing its will on the secular state. What part of that don’t you understand. Oh, where the evidence points, as you don’t want to acknowledge reality.
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
But you won’t directly confront the church
will you?
then STFU
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
So now the dichotomy is “opposing religion online” vs. “political activism offline”? Completely ignoring opposing politics online in order to glorify activism, and completely ignoring the possibility of real life anti-religious activism? And you think it is unlikely that one will both involve themselves in political activism AND criticize religious institutions on the internet?
Dumber by the fucking minute.
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
Nolajim, we here are an amorphous bunch. Some of us do in fact spend a lot of time lobbying lawmakers in our respective countries (and for the record, a lot of us are not American). Some of us do in fact spend a lot of time agitating for secularism and a dismantling of the power of religious institutions.
But if you think we’re apathetic and don’t care, fuck you. Recently – in the past two weeks – in response to a plea from a commenter, the commenters here chipped in and raised $2000 to get a woman in need and her child way from her abusive ex. So fuck you. We care. We act. We agitate in our own ways. And we fucking take care of each other.
Mr. Fire:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Ok, add to that list: hubrisitic sweeping assertions about what we are or are not capable of doing with our lives.
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
Completely ignoring opposing politics online
…and completely ignoring that it was the viral online spreading of this very case that is the reason he came here to whinge.
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:20 pm
So weren’t we all Ugly Americans who didn’t know anything about Ireland and how it was Truly Secular just a few minutes ago? Now we are all Irish, and should be ashamed for not starting an Irish grass-roots movement?
Nolajim will learn how the internet works eventually, I hope.
But, you see, that’s not politics. Because something something something religion something something secular law.
John Morales:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
nolajim:
FFS. I’m not Irish, nor am I an activist; pretty much all I do is comment on blogs and dispute claims when people IRL make them.
You, however, are being (at best) disingenuous*.
(Your shift to argument to incredulity and appeal to personal authority is duly noted)
–
* Do you at least admit that the Catholic Church is a pernicious institution which perverts people’s morality?
timgueguen:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Here in Saskatchewan we actually had a Catholic hosptial cease to be Catholic. The hospital in the city of Humboldt was Catholic run, but was eventually taken over by the publicly run Saskatoon Regional Health Authority in 2007. Controversy had arisen over Catholic influence over what procedures would be conducted in the hospital, the only one in Humboldt. A specific issue was the refusal to do tubal ligations.
Saskatoon has three hospitals, the publicly run City Hospital, Royal University Hospital, which is part of the University of Saskatchewan, and the Catholic run St. Paul’s Hospital. St. Paul;s and University are the locations of Saskatoon’s full time emergency departments, while the emergency department at City is open between 8:30 AM and 8 PM.
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 14th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
And nolajim flounces again, trailing a jaunty argument from ignorance behind. Bravo I say, bravo…[wild applause]…you truly are a treasure.
Pssst. Come here…[whispers] Five’ll get ya ten xe can’t stick the flounce…any takers?
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:28 pm
* Do you at least admit that the Catholic Church is a pernicious institution which perverts people’s morality? (John Morales @#373).
Yes.
I’ll go further. Christianity is a peculiarly problematic religion that sets the moral/ethical bar terribly low, and confuses “faith” or “being religious” with morality and/or ethics.
At NO point above have I said otherwise. Everything I said above acknowledges that the church is an obstacle in ethical progress in a case such as Savita’s (and in many others).
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
nolajim:
I hope you don’t think you’ve steered this conversation in another direction.
You haven’t.
You’re still wrong.
Heck, you’re even wrong with your divergence.
Why the heck would atheists work to change church policy from within?
Why would anyone want to change church policy anyways?
I want churches *gone*.
I want religion *gone*.
I want superstitious thinking *gone*.
Not through force.
Not through blackmail.
Not through intimidation.
I want that accomplished by persuasion and strong arguments.
Religion is a pox on humanity and belongs in the dustbin of oblivion.
John Morales:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:34 pm
[meta]
nolajim @376, thank you.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
nolajim:
And yet you think your simplistic answer “attack the government” is the answer. Despite the pernicious influence of Roman Catholic doctrine in Ireland.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:38 pm
And I agree with Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– @#377. Not the part about me, but certainly the part about religion being a pox that needs to be eliminated by strong argument.
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
Which means that all your handwringing has been over nothing in particular, and was basically all just pedantry/concern. What a fucking relief that is.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
But unlike what Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze– just wrote, I have not suggested anyone should “attack” the (or any) government.
Jadehawk:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
don’t ever play poker, you’d suck at it.
fascinating.
actually, results are ongoing. victory will take a while longer, but so does every social justice fight. Feminism is officially in its 2nd century of fighting, and we’re nowhere near done with that either (and it took over 70 years to just get women the vote, to begin with)
to the degree that non-residents of Ireland can do anything to engage at that level, this is already being done (someone clearly missed where the appropriate e-mail addresses were linked to earlier, for example)
but keep on whining, I’m sure your whining here is totes grass-roots activism for overthrowing ireland’s abortion laws.
like fuck you will
quite.
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Honestly, I would almost prefer godbots to the mounds of non-believers who rant on and on about their Superior Tactics, and heap scorn on any of us who don’t bow down and immediately start spreading non-belief and/or liberalism through the specific means that they have dictated to us, and stop attempting to spread it through means that they have deemed Inferior. If they actually had a good argument, I might make an exception, but they usually don’t and they are often just as thick as any other breed of idiot.
He meant it figuratively, dumbass. As a synonym for protest, criticize, etc.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 10:49 pm
I think I can safely say there’s now NO doubt that he’s Catholic
According to this idiot every instance of organized crime in Sicily is the fault of the government for allowing themselves to be influenced by the Mafia! We should focus on the state not waste our time going after or attacking the Mafia!
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:50 pm
Thank you, Anteprepro. I felt the distinction between “attack” and “participate in the political process” was an important one. Is that another one of my “false dichotomies?”
Jadehawk:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
jesus. illiterate pedants are the worst.
do you get equally pearl-clutchy when people “attack” problems instead of “solving” them?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Ok got that? He never said the Church wasn’t involved in cases like this? Let’s check comment number one!
Or to paraphrase, while the Church has plenty to be mad about (unstated OTHER issues) *THIS* was the fault of the secular state and not the Church.
Hey everyone, remember Bog Boy Pants Roberts from before? We got another protean troll. Who wants to try to nail Jello to a wall!
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:53 pm
Ing:Intllectual: your Catholic-detecting radar is REALLY bad. I have no religion, have little patience with religion in general, and am especially uncomfortable with Christianity, in spite of growing up with it.
Anri:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:54 pm
Just not an obstacle worth trying to remove.
Gotcha.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 10:55 pm
For reference we have the Backtracker and Hotel California Guest.
I just wanted to point out to the asshole that people are well aware of his bullshit game .
Ok pendant, here’s one for you. Go fuck yourself. Literally. You really need to shove your own body up your own ass. Sideways
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 10:56 pm
No I do not think it is. Hey btw, “NUH UGH!” is not a convincing argument when someone says they don’t believe you.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:56 pm
nolajim:
You have trouble understanding the words on the screen?
I suppose I should spell things out better for you.
Instead of
attackingcriticizing the Catholic doctrines that led to fucked up laws about abortion, you’d ratherattackcriticize the Irish government.I know that you have not advocated any violence against any institution.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
But Ing:Intellectual, I don’t understand why you just mis-paraphrased what I’ve written. I *did* say this is the fault of the secular state. But I clearly *did not* says “and not the Church.” You put words in my mouth, words I did not write and that can not be logically inferred from what I *did* write.
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 10:59 pm
nolajim must think that every cry of “personal attack” brought up in debates is actually an attempt to file a police report.
nolajim must think that “attack ads” are from a dystopian future where people are hunted down by robots that look like Nascar vehicles.
nolajim must frantically search for a schedule boxing or MMA match every time a politician says they will “fight” for something.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:01 pm
yawn, pointless fuckwitted idjit still being obtuse and ignorant. Boring, nothing cogent said, and its unevidence opinion can *POOF* be dismissed as nothing but noise.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:02 pm
nolajim:
[emphasis mine]
I hope this helps you understand what I meant when I used the word attack.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:03 pm
You fucking liar.
“While many attacks can be blamed on feral dogs the fact remains that Charles Von Mustacheride was antagonizing the dog that wound up biting him”
Those are your words. That is what you said. You fucking lying liar
Full fucking quote for context
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Look, I’m not quibbling over words here for the fun of it. Rather, this group has jumped to some odd and unfounded conclusions about my position, based on some process I cannot see, and having nothing to do with the words I wrote here. I actually share much of the concern and position here, and have actually proposed only a pragmatic re-focus.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:06 pm
Now you’ve become totally irrational Ing:. You’ve correctly quoted what I said, which clearly and unequivocally places blame on the church as well as the state. Then you say I’ve excluded the church and you call *me* a liar. Look at what you just posted.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:08 pm
@nolajim
I’m sorry that frelling ENGLISH to you is some uncomprehensible process.
Yeah I’m sure EVERYONE misread what you meant and you either aren’t a shit head or an idiot. Since you’re arguing not that you miswrote, but that everyone MISREAD YOU and that what you wrote was fine and not what everyone else INDEPENDENTLY read it as the evidence suggests you’re an arrogant shit head.
When people complain of your breath do you sit in shocked awe that so many people have the same olfactory hallucination?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:09 pm
Are you a fuckign idiot? Everyone can read it You clearly said it was the state’s fault and that you can’t EVEN blame the doctors, much less the Church.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:09 pm
Now, I *DO* feel that the doctor’s aren’t to blame. Their hands were tied by Irish law.
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
That’s an odd way to apologize for not communicating clearly and consistently failing to understand what several people have said in response.
Here’s a hint: Your “pragmatic re-focus” involved completely avoiding opposition to the church. For “pragmatic” reasons. Your arguments for this “re-focus” have been bullshit. Your responses have revealed even more idiocy. And all this has served to simply distract everyone from the fact that a woman has fucking died, in order to make the conversation all about you and your pet arguments. Congratulations on your success with that one. Will you fuck off now?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:11 pm
Did you read ANYONE who responded to you, shit stain? Do you think the fact you ignored people correcting you on this multiple times has anything to do with people thinking you’re an asshole? No everyone else must be irrational, you’re prefect!
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:11 pm
I’m not sure what part of my exact and clear words “While there is plenty of blame here to heap on the Church at Rome,” your just not comprehending, or why.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:15 pm
@nolajim
“I’m not a racist but…”
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:15 pm
And what part of “you need to show that the church isn’t engaged in lobbying for church values” don’t you comprehend? Where is your evidence that the church isn’t trying to have an effect on public policy? That’s right, you have no evidence for that, as all the evidence points at them trying keep the country “catholic”. Either put up or shut the fuck up.
Jadehawk:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:15 pm
you suck at communication if you think the following structure assigns blame equally rather than placing it squarely on the state (in this case)
1)”while” –> “let’s be more realistic” is a negating construction of whatever follows after the while; it’s how you carve out an exception, or how you draw a distinction
2)the following sentence then presents the contradiction/exception, pointing to the supposed separation of church and state, thus placing the blame with a non-Catholic-influenced state
if that’s not what you meant to convey, then you probably should polish up on English a bit. but to be honest, I don’t think you meant to portray anything else, given that to do so would have been to agree with everyone else here.
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:16 pm
The fact that every other sentence after that minimizes it? The fact that you say that woman died as a “result” of “the laws of the secular state of Ireland” with no other implication that the Catholic church had anything at all to do with it? The fact that you end your original post by emphasizing how Ireland can change their laws without Vatican input, clearly doing your damndest to lay blame on the state and minimize the role that Catholic beliefs play in affecting the laws of the “secular state”?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:17 pm
When you say “while blah blah blah” and then everything else is antithetical to blah blah blah, people don’t fucking care about your hedging bullshit.
You literally said “while the church definitely has some blame, it is entirely the state’s fault!”
Not even blaming the people who watched a woman die horribly of a treatable illness while in their care when the law was ambiguous or on their side.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:18 pm
Ing:, you are deeply confused about what happened in this case, and are not alone. I’ve been trying to fix here on this blog for a long time, to no avail. 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. If you doubt this, you need to review existing Irish abortion law and the medical facts described in the news articles in the Irish Times.
And this point is critical to understanding all the rest of my position, which I agree makes no sense without it. Neither the doctors nor the hospital sustained their anti-abortion position in this case because of religion (directly). They sustained because they did not want to spend life in prison.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:18 pm
Wow! How odd it is that everyone apparently shares the same irrational brain damage as my tiny little mind and reads the same paragraph the same way as me despite it clearly saying other things to more logical people!!!!
What could the common trait be!? Is it drinking water? Trans fats? Corn syrup? Shellfish allergy? Subliminal messages in cartoons!?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:19 pm
YOU HAVE BEEN CORRECTED ON THUS MULTIPLE TIMES YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 14th, 2012 at 11:21 pm
Oh now I see, it all becomes so clear: no one except nolajim is capable of engaging in activism. And most especially not Irish doctors. Got it.
Jadehawk:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:22 pm
boring strawman is boring
as I’ve already demonstrated, any claims that the state is not partially responsible are purely a figment of nolajim’s imagination and his inability to read the many comments saying the things he so vehemently doesn’t want to have been said.
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:22 pm
Still ignoring the role that Catholicism played in those laws? Still trying to minimize Catholicism’s influence?
Fuck it, you aren’t worth the time. It would be more fruitful to argue with an actual Catholic than with this incorrigible fuckwit.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:23 pm
The law was by no means ambiguous. I don’t where this idea comes from. Let’s be clear. Irish Law does *NOT* permit abortion just to reduce a pregnant woman’s suffering, nor because there is a risk that a pregnancy *MIGHT* become life-threatening. These are modifications to Irish law that have been kicked around for years, but have *NEVER* been implemented (as indicated by the letter from the Irish doctor to the Irish Times I posted hours back). This is WHY I am so angry at the Irish government and political process, and why I believe a political process undertaken now could yield positive results. NO, I don’t think they’ll make abortion legal on demand. Yes, I think they’ll give doctors much clearer latitude in situations like Savita’s.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:24 pm
Ing:
I don’t think you need to quote nolajim any further than this:
Translation:
It’s not realistic to attack the Roman Catholic Church for Sativa’s death.
He thinks it’s more “realistic” to attack-sorry CRITICIZE-the government.
If nolajim really thinks the RCC bears any responsibility for Sativa’s death, he wouldn’t think it unrealistic to criticize them.
Moreover, criticizing the RCC vs criticizing the Irish government?
chigau (棒や石):
November 14th, 2012 at 11:26 pm
The only reason I can think of for the RCC to be an unstoppable force or an immovable object would be if it had the backing of a supernatural entity.
Is that why fighting it is a waste of time?
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:27 pm
You will win this by attrition: I’ll go to bed soon (not quite yet). PLEASE: get clear on the medical facts of this case AND the (quite short) Irish abortion law.
Jadehawk:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:27 pm
it’s not even hedging, is how you construct a specific kind of contradiction:
“while it’s been chillier than in the previous weeks, it is not yet time to break out the scarves” -> it’s not cold
“while some critics disliked the play, many who had seen it said they’d enjoy seeing it a second time” -> the play was good
etc.
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Yes, but he is so right that all he has do is repeat the same shit over and over and eventually we will be so overcome by the glory of his argumentation that we will instantaneously convert to whatever blend of Radical Apathy he is peddling. We too will see the value in not calling out religion for its negative impact on society, and in pretending that local battles with the after-effects of its influence are the only kind of battles that we should dare commit to. He will convince us, eventually. Just a few more hundred repetitions to go.
anteprepro:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:31 pm
Looks like Mr. Fire might not get his money. He didn’t guess “Passive aggressive acknowledged forfeit”.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:31 pm
The medical facts? Oh you little fucking shit. The fact that “SLAB OF ROTTING MEAT LOBBED INSIDE SOMEONE” == “DEATH” is basic fucking medicine. It’s not even year one med school, this is shit they expect you to have picked up by mere nature of having an interest in frelling medicine. This isn’t ambiguous medical scenarios here, this is basics that were well understood in frontier medicine.
The miscarriage didn’t put her in risk of death just as a knife being stabbed at you doesn’t put you in risk of puncture.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:33 pm
Out of curiosity if we shoved a live hang grenade up your ass would you insist on us waiting until it actually detonated, thus putting your life at risk, before we talk about surgically removing it? Cause I’m pretty sure that the situation so close to your head would change your tune
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:33 pm
nolajim@419:
Please see steve84′s comment @74 (which he provides a source for)–>
Now, was Sativa’s life in danger at any point during her hospital stay?
Perhaps not on the first day, but by the second, hell yes.
The doctors had plenty of latitude between choosing to save Sativa’s life and letting her die. Those were the two options. They chose to let her die.
MissEla:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:34 pm
From steve 84 @ 74:
From the esteemed Maureen Brian @ 121:
Try reading for comprehension again, halfwit.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:34 pm
You know random thought. His reading of the medical facts, that it didn’t put her at risk of life is oddly not something I think any honest doctor would say or read the situation as. It is coincidentally enough though the Catholic reading of the situation based on dogma and their insane ideas of primary and secondary causes
MissEla:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:35 pm
Damn, Tony, great minds think alike! lol
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:36 pm
BTW: Where was I “Corrected.” One poster who accused me of not having the medical facts even apologized above.
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 14th, 2012 at 11:37 pm
Fuck you’re stupid.
Quoting Nepenthe #30:
And even if that weren’t true, why exactly are you calling for political action from everyone but Irish doctors.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:37 pm
In any other instance OTHEr than “pregnant woman” do you think the scenario of “huge area of septic tissue inside the body” would be considered NOT a substantial risk to life? FFS people have had their foot cut off for less risk
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:38 pm
no. we get what you’re saying. really.
you’re wrong on how things change politically, that’s all.
you don’t change things from the top down, that NEVER works, because politicians in a democratic society always feel they must pander to an easily controllable base in order to win elections.
we’ve seen it here in the states for decades; starting most obviously (though really even years before) with Nixon’s “Southern Strategy”.
no, the thing that must be done, that has NEVER been done, throughout history, is to remove the irrational base, so that politicians won’t feel they can take advantage of it.
best way to do that ISN’T by tackling the politicians… but the BASE.
get rid of the church, dispel this fucking centuries-old mythology, and the rest will take care of itself.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:38 pm
If only two people had quoted the law to you and there was a practicing doctor or two telling you the medicine.
Alas you appear not to live in such a world
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:39 pm
I Like #428, above. Savita was 17 weeks pregnant, which is not “extreme immaturity.”
John Morales:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:41 pm
nolajim:
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:41 pm
I’m feverish, this is good news, yes?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:41 pm
Extreme immaturity doesn’t matter. If the condition were a fucking kidney going tits up like the fetus did there would be no doubt that removal was a life saving procedure. You’re lying again.
consciousness razor:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:42 pm
Fixed.
It’s as if you think only one person/group can be responsible for something. That’s absurd.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:42 pm
Ing:
A. Echo Chamber
B. Group Think
C. PZ’s sock puppets
D. all of the above
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:42 pm
Savita was 17 weeks pregnant, which is not “extreme immaturity.”
the extreme immaturity appears to be all your own.
come back when you’ve taken the wax out of your damn ears.
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 14th, 2012 at 11:43 pm
Hmmm, have this lost and lonely question mark: ?
And note to self: must type faster.
MissEla:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:45 pm
Holy shit, nolajim, you are an imbecile. With current medical intervention 23 weeks is the minimum fetal age for viability, with a whopping 20-35% survival rate. Link. How could a 17-week fetus *possibly* survive?!?!?!
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:45 pm
Sigh. Again. Savita’s Septicemia did not set in until AFTER the fetus had died. When she checked in, she did not have septicemia, her life was not at risk, so there was no exceptional situation that could make an abortion legal. Yes, this would be considered malpractice in many other countries, where the high *RISK* of septicemia setting in would make an abortion legal. That legal situation does not exist in Ireland.
It is not appropriate for you to call me a *fuckwit* when you simply do not have the medical and legal facts. Look it up!
John Morales:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:46 pm
[snark]
Lucky the Church doesn’t hold that tumours are human life.
(Small mercy, that)
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:46 pm
You know since you admitted you’ll lose by attrition, everyone here is already soured on you due to both the inanity of your arguments and the repulsiveness of your personality, and the ‘irrationality’ of everyone here you can make all parties happy by cutting the chance and leaving.
Repeating the same shit isn’t going to convince anyone, there is nothing to gain here.
Except the need to get the last word. You’re free to prove me wrong but I think you’re going to keep spinning in that door due to being a shit head.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:48 pm
Than you, Consciousnous Razor, for correcting my error.
MissEla:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:48 pm
Nolajim–Where is it stated that septicemia ONLY occurs AFTER fetal death? Septicemia occurs from an open wound in a non-sterile environment. An open cervix, leaking fluid, not being treated is what brought on septicemia. This is not difficult.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:48 pm
consciousness razor @440:
The power of thinking is not strong with that one.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:49 pm
I think someone already used the logic that someone wasn’t wounded UNTIL the bullets hit them, ergo they were in no danger when the gun was fired.
The fact that this inevitable miscarriage, which was what was happening, would lead to septicemia is basic medicine, it’s going to be dead tissue. Are you willing to have a slab of spoiled beef surgically implanted in your viscera and wait for us to remove it only when things go pear shaped?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:50 pm
Who could have guessed that a dying fetus could somehow have an adverse effect on a woman’s body? Definitely not a doctor.
consciousness razor:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:51 pm
You’re welcome to stop making egregious and repeated fucking errors any time.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:51 pm
Are you thus ready to apologize and admit everyone actually was reading what you wrote then? And if so why are you arguing as if you wrote the version before the correction?
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:51 pm
Sigh. Again. Savita’s Septicemia did not set in until AFTER the fetus had died.
based on the available evidence, this is not the case.
but, I’ll go ahead and wait for the coroner’s report so you can come back and tell us you were wrong.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:53 pm
MisEla@#449: I don’t think it says anywhere that Septicemia occurs ONLY after fetal death. I certainly didn’t say that. 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. This is as described in the Irish Times coverage of the case.
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:53 pm
so there was no exceptional situation that could make an abortion legal.
where are you getting this?
all the reports I have seen have her leaking fluid, suggesting membrane rupture, 2 days before she died, and all the doctors who are obgyns that have been commenting said there was indeed a significant risk long before the “heartbeat stopped”.
consciousness razor:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:55 pm
Patience, Ing. We need more flagrant bullshitting before we’ll be ready for that.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:55 pm
Who could have guessed that a dying fetus could somehow have an adverse effect on a woman’s body? Definitely not a doctor.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:55 pm
No, Ing:, your persistent mischaracterization of my position is something you need to take responsiblity for.
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:56 pm
here:
http://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/did-irish-catholic-law-or-malpractice-kill-savita-halappanavar/
an analysis, by a qualified doctor, of everything that was known up to this point.
got a coroner’s report to contradict any of that?
I thought not.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:56 pm
nolajim @445:
You really, truly cannot read for SHIT.
From the link in PZ’s post:
Clearly we can see that this (from you):
is false. Her septicemia set in while the fetus was still alive.
nolajim:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:56 pm
Janine: You are quite right. The Doctors MUST have seen the risk. It is most unfortunate that the LAW in Ireland didn’t allow that risk to be managed properly.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:57 pm
Ok I’m concluding now that you’re an intentional troll going for lulz now
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:57 pm
No, Ing:, your persistent mischaracterization of my position is something you need to take responsiblity for.
ok, that’s it, fucking flounce ya moron.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:57 pm
Nolajim, most of the people here understand exactly what you are saying. And have pointed out your flaw. She was in deep danger long before the fetus died.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:58 pm
Hey! Except that it DOES when there is risk to LIFE. AS EVERYONE HAS FUCKING CITED. Multiple times.
Ichthyic:
November 14th, 2012 at 11:58 pm
It is most unfortunate that the LAW in Ireland didn’t allow that risk to be managed properly.
and it WON’T, ya fucking moron, not ever, until YOU GET RID OF THE CHURCH THERE.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 14th, 2012 at 11:59 pm
Janine your mischaracterization and misreading of him is something I have to take responsibility for
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:00 am
*facepalm*
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:00 am
nolajim:
The second half of your sentence is misleading. While septicemia may not have been diagnosed until after the fetus died, the *symptoms* of it were present before the fetus died. Given that doctors know the signs of septicemia, and given that she had miscarried, the proper course of action should have been to abort the child when she started displaying symptoms.
Actually the proper course of action should have been to abort the child the minute she requested.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 15th, 2012 at 12:00 am
@Ichthyic
Except the law DOES have an out for risk to life (but not health…which one has to question how you can even do that as people have a tendency to die when their health deteriorates).
It’s almost as if the problem is that the doctors were so entrenched in the Catholic position and so enslaved to it that they were afraid to make use of the allowance the law grants!
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 15th, 2012 at 12:01 am
And once again: why are Irish doctors exempt from your call to political activism norajim? Is activism only valid when it doesn’t flout the law?
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:02 am
Icthyc at #461: I agree with the analysis in the link you provided. As that doctor points out, one of the possible explanations is that “1) Irish law does indeed treat pregnant women as second class citizens and denies them appropriate medical care. The medical team was following the law to avoid criminal prosecution.” He does not reach a conclusion one way or the other, because he does not directly know the applicable Irish Law.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 15th, 2012 at 12:02 am
@Tony
Your mischaracterization is something I have to take responsibility for
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 15th, 2012 at 12:02 am
Oops, that’d be nolajim. Apologies.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 15th, 2012 at 12:04 am
@Fossilfishy
Your mistyping of nolajim is something I have to take responsibility for
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:04 am
nolajim:
A woman DIED because of the pernicious effects of religion. That is what is an unfortunate tragedy.
Given how fucked up your moral compass is to say the above, I have a hard time believing you’re not Catholic.
The proper thing to say, if you have an ounce of compassion:
It is most unfortunate that the doctors in the hospital chose to let a woman die, rather than perform a life saving operation.
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:05 am
I don’t understand your point FossilFishy. The doctor’s COULD have taken an activist stance, I suppose, but they would have been risking life in prison, which is what the applicable law requires for illegal abortion.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 15th, 2012 at 12:05 am
@Tony
He doesn’t cast any blames to the doctors. They are innocent victims of the state
consciousness razor:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:06 am
Don’t feel too bad. Ultimately, it’s all Rebecca Watson’s fault.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 15th, 2012 at 12:06 am
@nolajim
Your inability to get Fossilfishy’s point is something I have to take responsibility for
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 15th, 2012 at 12:07 am
@Consciousness Razor
Rebecca Watson’s fault is something I have to rake responsibility for as it is all her fault.
Wait….what.
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:08 am
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.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:08 am
Leaving aside the sheer fuckwittedness of the church and state colluding in keeping such an inhumane law in place, doesn’t the hospital have lawyers on staff who could let the doctors know what they can do to get around these laws?
Those doctors failed the patient. The ultimate fault falls upon the RCC and the Irish Government but the medical staff did little to prevent want they knew was possible.
Why is this so hard for you to understand?
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 15th, 2012 at 12:09 am
From Icthyc’s link
From nolajim
nolajim again
Are you now saying that you do believe that septicemia was in fact present before the fetus died?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 15th, 2012 at 12:09 am
See I was raised to hold special disdain for those who would dare utter a variation of the excuse “Just following orders”
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:12 am
Ing:
You’re killing me.
You should probably do a group apology to all the members of the Horde you’ve mischaracterized, lest you be here all night long :)
consciousness razor:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:13 am
They not only could but also should do that.
Go to prison doing something just, because of an unjust law? Yep, that’s the just thing to do. That’s how justice works when there are unjust laws.
So now we’re back to whether you really agree that the laws are unjust, and whether you really agree that justice is more important than the law.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 15th, 2012 at 12:14 am
@Tony
Please, a bland group apology would be taking the easy way out and be hallow and unconvincing. I have to take my lumps and take responsibility.
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:15 am
Granted, Ing;, that there is a significant difference here between the legal and the ethical.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:15 am
Sugar for your tea?
One lump or two?
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:15 am
nolajim:
Great.
Wonderful.
I hope you never try to convince us, because judging by the shit you’ve posted, you need to hit ctrl/alt/delete on your moral compass.
John Morales:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:17 am
[meta]
nolajim.
By ‘he’, you refer to Dr. Jen Gunter.
(Did you note Jen’s physiognomy in the link provided?)
consciousness razor:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:17 am
You would kill a person to avoid going to prison? And you wouldn’t be morally responsible for killing them, simply because you risked going to prison if you hadn’t done it?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 15th, 2012 at 12:18 am
I was going to make a comment about how your sense of ethics is detestable…but I can’t get over the punctuation in that sentence. I mean I can’t talk but holy fuck. What were you even going for?
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:19 am
Are we really about to reach 500 comments, because one RCC apologist with a skewed moral compass can’t read?
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 15th, 2012 at 12:19 am
@JM
The gender confusion is something I have to take responsibility for
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:20 am
Consciousness Razor: At a certain level, I agree with you. 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.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:20 am
Ing:
There’s no need to comment on nolajim’s sense of ethics.
It’s catholicism all the way down.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:20 am
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?
John Morales:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:21 am
nolajim:
Perhaps.
But also doubtless in so doing, they would have violated
IrishCanon Law, and risked anathema.(You don’t dispute this, but you keep ignoring it)
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:22 am
Thank you Ing:, I did mistype the colon that I was treating as part of your handle as a semicolon.
consciousness razor:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:23 am
Translation: they should and shouldn’t do it.
That’s really helpful.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 15th, 2012 at 12:24 am
You made a typo on the course of doing something intentionally stupid?
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:27 am
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.
feralboy12:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:27 am
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.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 15th, 2012 at 12:28 am
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.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:28 am
You are mistaken. And this has been pointed out to you repeatedly.
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:30 am
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.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:31 am
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.
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:32 am
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.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:33 am
nolajim:
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.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 15th, 2012 at 12:33 am
Except that you did
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:34 am
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.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:35 am
nolajim “he of the bankrupt moral compass”:
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.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:36 am
And to think that you have been whining about Ing misrepresenting your words.
You are an assclam.
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 15th, 2012 at 12:36 am
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.
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:36 am
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?
consciousness razor:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:39 am
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.)
John Morales:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:40 am
nolajim @12(+500):
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)
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:41 am
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.
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 15th, 2012 at 12:42 am
Repeating this because I believe it has yet to be answered:
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:42 am
Aren’t you the cutest little smug assclam.
chigau (棒や石):
November 15th, 2012 at 12:47 am
Sleep tight, nolajim.
We’ll be waiting.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:47 am
Just one last question, assclam. You said this.
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.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:49 am
nolajim:
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.
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 15th, 2012 at 12:51 am
And there we go, nolajim at #500(22) drags it back full circle to my original point:
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:51 am
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.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:52 am
Tony, you are being quite unfair to out upstanding assclam guest. We are upset about this only because of in-group dynamics.
rorschach:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:53 am
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.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:55 am
Janine:
you are quite correct.
::snicker::
chigau (棒や石):
November 15th, 2012 at 12:56 am
Wait.
Does nolajim thinks we’re all sockpuppets?
Isn’t that what ‘in-group’ is code for?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 15th, 2012 at 12:56 am
Just so you know, nolajim; rorschach is a doctor.
John Morales:
November 15th, 2012 at 1:00 am
nolajim @19:
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!))
Jadehawk:
November 15th, 2012 at 1:06 am
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?
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 1:14 am
Will he be back? Going to sleep doesn’t count as a flounce, right?
I’m biting my nails in nervous anticipation.
chigau (棒や石):
November 15th, 2012 at 1:23 am
Only if xe never wakes up.
Ichthyic:
November 15th, 2012 at 1:33 am
no! I am Spartacus!
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 15th, 2012 at 1:47 am
mudpuddles
As long as it might seem on Irish roads, that’s not really like California and Florida
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
You’re either a liar or you’re too stupid to understand that somebody can influence laws without writing them themselves.
You’re an idiot if you think you can do the former without actively working towards the latter.
Fucking asshole stop accusing people here of all places of “finding excuses not to do something”.
Yes, you’ve convinced everybody that you’re a dishonest asshole.
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.
Speak for yourself. In which case I’m surprised you manage to type and breathe simultaneously.
You’re simply wrong on this and don’t understand that those things are inseperatable.
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.
The only person here who actively opposes doing something is you. Everybody else agrees that we can do (and indeed are already doing) both.
So you actually do oppose both ways of activism…
Liar, liar, pants on fire. That has been discussed and dismissed already.
John Morales
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.
John Morales:
November 15th, 2012 at 1:54 am
[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)
Ichthyic:
November 15th, 2012 at 2:09 am
+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.
Beatrice:
November 15th, 2012 at 3:38 am
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.
Beatrice:
November 15th, 2012 at 3:40 am
And I was unclear here:
if not treated.
Matt Penfold:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:29 am
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.
Crissa:
November 15th, 2012 at 5:18 am
Why does it need to be the only possible outcome?
If death is only one of the possible outcomes, it’s still life-threatening.
Beatrice:
November 15th, 2012 at 5:26 am
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.
Beatrice:
November 15th, 2012 at 5:29 am
Although, you might want to change “one of the possible” into probable, or of significant probability.
Otherwise, it is a bit too broad.
Beatrice:
November 15th, 2012 at 5:31 am
Crissa,
I was probably nitpicking there, sorry.
la tricoteuse:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:09 am
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.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:16 am
la tricoteuse
Well, last time I checked in in a maternity hospital I wasn’t giving birth yet. Funnily they still assisted me with doing so some time later.
But apparently that’s magic, you’re right
la tricoteuse:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:23 am
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.
rq:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:33 am
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…?
rq:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:41 am
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.
la tricoteuse:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:49 am
“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.
Anri:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:50 am
nolajim:
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.
rq:
November 15th, 2012 at 7:00 am
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.
dianne:
November 15th, 2012 at 8:06 am
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.
dianne:
November 15th, 2012 at 8:10 am
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?
dianne:
November 15th, 2012 at 8:17 am
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.
blogofmyself:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:02 am
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.
Ogvorbis: resident of Threadruptia (and broken):
November 15th, 2012 at 9:03 am
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.
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?
F-
blogofmyself:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:03 am
(The rest of you, though, are amazing, and I like you a lot.)
Pteryxx:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:30 am
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:
Esteleth, Elen síla lúmenn' omentielvo:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:43 am
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?
Ogvorbis: resident of Threadruptia (and broken):
November 15th, 2012 at 9:55 am
Esteleth:
Well, you did miss the bit about Ireland being a secular nation and the RCC is absolutely powerless.
rq:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:57 am
Thanks for the summary, Esteleth. When laid out like that, it is amazing that nolajim continuously missed the point.
chigau (棒や石):
November 15th, 2012 at 10:00 am
Esteleth #65
I think you covered it.
[I'm expecting nolajim to return.]
Ogvorbis: resident of Threadruptia (and broken):
November 15th, 2012 at 10:02 am
nolajim seemed to be missing the point intentionally.
chigau (棒や石):
November 15th, 2012 at 10:06 am
nolajim’s point is that God is too powerful to fight.
Gregory Greenwood:
November 15th, 2012 at 10:08 am
blogofmyself @ 61;
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 incubatorsaving 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.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 10:09 am
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.
Amphiox:
November 15th, 2012 at 10:19 am
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)
Ogvorbis: resident of Threadruptia (and broken):
November 15th, 2012 at 10:19 am
Nerd:
Sorry. I was deliberately understating for sarcasm. Failed again. Sorry.
Q.E.D:
November 15th, 2012 at 10:21 am
Josh @ 109
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”.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 10:36 am
Sorry, I was agreeing with you and adding my own commentary. No criticism of you was intended.
chigau (棒や石):
November 15th, 2012 at 10:43 am
Nerd and Ogvorbis
It’s OK.
Ing is responsible.
Ogvorbis: resident of Threadruptia (and broken):
November 15th, 2012 at 10:45 am
No problem. Besides:
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).)
Lynna, OM:
November 15th, 2012 at 11:01 am
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45755822/#49831648
unclefrogy:
November 15th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
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
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
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.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 15th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
You are laughable, nolajim.
Beatrice:
November 15th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
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?
chigau (棒や石):
November 15th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
nolajim
Which of Esteleth’s points (comment #65) do you dispute?
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 15th, 2012 at 1:52 pm
Here’s something on Irelands low maternal mortality
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 1:56 pm
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.
hfj001:
November 15th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
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.)
Beatrice:
November 15th, 2012 at 2:00 pm
Tony,
Psss. that was Esteleth
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 15th, 2012 at 2:04 pm
hfj001
Link, please?
Not ‘Cause I don’t believe you, I just want to read it
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
My apologies. It was ESTELETH who posted the highlights of this thread.
rq:
November 15th, 2012 at 2:43 pm
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.”
Mr. Fire:
November 15th, 2012 at 3:12 pm
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?
Josh, Official SpokesGay:
November 15th, 2012 at 3:21 pm
MrFire! It’s damned good to see you around here! What are you doing when not monitoring nolajim while he bides his time?
jose:
November 15th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
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.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 3:27 pm
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.
No Light:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
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.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
Jose
Links, please *Bambi-eyes*
Oh, anybody heard anything from the most moral Chris Stedman on this?
Beatrice:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:20 pm
Giliell,
I only found this one:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/samrocha/2012/11/the-scandalous-abortion-of-savita-halappanavar/
dianne:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:21 pm
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.
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:22 pm
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.
rq:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:29 pm
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.
rq:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:30 pm
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.
No Light:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:31 pm
Dianne – I can send out some USB fentanyl to sedate people who become ill and upset after going to
God’s EnablersPatheos 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”
Ichthyic:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
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.
Beatrice:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:32 pm
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.
Ichthyic:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
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.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:35 pm
beatrice
Ahhh, I see an extr large helping of “no true catholic” with a large side dish of moral outrage and a mea-cupla cherry on top.
Nice
Ichthyic:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
you have evidence of this?
what am I saying? Of course you don’t.
FUCK.
OFF.
YOU.
DISHONEST.
SHIT.
Ichthyic:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
That doesn’t mean the RCC is not culpable.
*headdesk*
seriously, you’re a moron. anyone ever tell you that?
Beatrice:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:38 pm
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.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:39 pm
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.
dianne:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
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?
rq:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
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.).
Ichthyic:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:44 pm
beatrice @98:
the message I left on his blog.
think it will pass “moderation”?
:)
Beatrice:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:49 pm
Ichthyic,
Not sure, but I hope he doesn’t have high blood pressure problems, because the comment will make his pressure soar for sure.
rq:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:50 pm
Doubt it. Just like Thomas.
Tethys:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:51 pm
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.
Beatrice:
November 15th, 2012 at 4:58 pm
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.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 15th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
Anybody noticed how all those hypocrites with their crocodile tears going on about how beautiful she was?
Guess it would have been OK if she’d been ugly
Beatrice:
November 15th, 2012 at 5:07 pm
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.
Ichthyic:
November 15th, 2012 at 5:09 pm
beatrice, why are you torturing yourself with Patheos visits?
rq:
November 15th, 2012 at 5:10 pm
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.
Beatrice:
November 15th, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Ichthyic,
Sick curiosity?
Rutee Katreya:
November 15th, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Oh Patheos. And then they’ll complain that we’re too mean.
Rutee Katreya:
November 15th, 2012 at 5:12 pm
Seriously, fuck their anti-choice bullshit.
rq:
November 15th, 2012 at 5:13 pm
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?
Beatrice:
November 15th, 2012 at 5:20 pm
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)
rq:
November 15th, 2012 at 5:25 pm
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…
jose:
November 15th, 2012 at 5:40 pm
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.
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
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?”
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:07 pm
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.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
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.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 15th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Nolajim has already shown signs of being in a bad internet argument trap…prognosis is grim that hell leave on his own
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:15 pm
BTW: the position I’m taking is extremely close to that of the Irish Times, as described in its editorial, above.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:17 pm
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.
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:19 pm
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.
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:23 pm
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?
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
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.
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.
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 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).
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.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
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.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:31 pm
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.
consciousness razor:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
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.
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.)
Nope. See above. It’s just a load of religious bullshit.
Then it’s bullshit.
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:32 pm
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.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
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.
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
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.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
For Fucks Sake, you are the most dense person I’ve ever had the displeasure of engaging nolajim:
You’re supporting your pathetic arguments with Catholic influenced bullshit??
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:
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.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
nolajim @144:
Fuck you, you Catholic Church enabling martyr.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
Fixed that for you abject loser.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:42 pm
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.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
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.
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
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.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 6:54 pm
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.
consciousness razor:
November 15th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
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.
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 7:02 pm
As you wish, Nerd of Redhead. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
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.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 7:08 pm
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?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Then shut the fuck up. You aren’t trained medical personnel.
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?
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
Time limit exceded for today.
mildlymagnificent:
November 15th, 2012 at 7:22 pm
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?
bargearse:
November 15th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
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.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Translation, I’ve been refuted seven ways from my imaginary holy day.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
nolajim:
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?
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
nolajim @154:
As has been pointed out to you, just being pregnant is dangerous for women. It’s 9 (ish) months of high risk.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
nolajim:
Communion time?
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 15th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
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.
consciousness razor:
November 15th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
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.
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’.
And it’s also terrible as a justification for their actions. So it’s both bullshit for being speculative and bullshit for being nonsensical.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
yo NOLAJIM:
Courtesy of Ophelia:
Please read. Absorb. Digest. Comprehend.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 15th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
Nolajim, I fucking blame the doctors of Ireland. And the fucking church that still holds sway there.
Ogvorbis: ջարդված:
November 15th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
No. No. No.
You wrote this earlier:
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?
Rodney Nelson:
November 15th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
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.
Mr. Fire:
November 15th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
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.
Mr. Fire:
November 15th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
point out
Rutee Katreya:
November 15th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
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.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 15th, 2012 at 8:59 pm
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.
Mr. Fire:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
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.
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
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.”
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:21 pm
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.
Ogvorbis: ջարդված:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
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)?
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
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.
Ogvorbis: ջարդված:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
nolajim:
Your words:
Your words. My emphasis.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
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?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
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.
nolajim:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Orgvorbis: You seem to have difficulty understanding that influence and power are not the same thing. Please consult a dictionary.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:36 pm
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.
gobi's sockpuppet's meatpuppet:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Guys, I have read every. single. comment. here.
I can only conclude that nolajim is some kind of twisted, catholic sponsored Chinese Room experiment .
Ogvorbis: ջարդված:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
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.
Rutee Katreya:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
The catholic church has HOW MUCH money, and Jim is going to pretend it has no power?
You’re confusing official capacities and duties with power.
Ogvorbis: ջարդված:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
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?
feralboy12:
November 15th, 2012 at 9:50 pm
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?
Amphiox:
November 15th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
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.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 15th, 2012 at 10:12 pm
Nolajim is large, nolajim contains multitudes.
That is why nolajim is able to not recognize the words that nolajim has typed out.
Amphiox:
November 15th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
He’s BLOCKQUOTING you directly.
He’s not putting words into your mouth. He’s taking the words RIGHT OUT OF YOUR MOUTH.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
nolajim:
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?
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
nolajim @154:
Let me consult a dictionary real quick like…
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.
Ogvorbis: ջարդված:
November 15th, 2012 at 10:45 pm
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.
Anri:
November 15th, 2012 at 10:56 pm
nolajim:
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?
…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?
Oh, get down off of the cross, someone else needs the Popsicle sticks.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 15th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
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.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
gobi’s sockpuppet’s meatpuppet:
I feel for you.
I hope you had a strong adult beverage to compensate for all the facepalming you likely did.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Janine @190:
Isn’t that what people say about the Yahweh?
I guess nolajim was made in god’s image.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 15th, 2012 at 11:17 pm
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.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 15th, 2012 at 11:42 pm
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 15th, 2012 at 11:43 pm
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.
gobi's sockpuppet's meatpuppet:
November 15th, 2012 at 11:43 pm
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…
gobi's sockpuppet's meatpuppet:
November 15th, 2012 at 11:49 pm
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.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 16th, 2012 at 12:33 am
FossilFishy:
I’m astonished.
Astonished I tell you.
That you would employ such binary thinking.
nolajim could very well be an idiotic liar for GeeSus.
FossilFishy (Νεοπτόλεμος's spellchecker):
November 16th, 2012 at 12:48 am
Damn you Tony! Spoiling my lovely conundrum with your nasty, nasty logic. grumble…grumble…
But then again: By their words ye shall know them. Seems I have a history of this…. ;)
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 16th, 2012 at 1:25 am
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.
You almost had it here, you almost had it.
And then yu lost it again.
John Morales:
November 16th, 2012 at 1:31 am
[OT]
Soft power.
(Historically, the Church had its own armies and its Inquisition)
Maureen Brian:
November 16th, 2012 at 2:30 am
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.
Rodney Nelson:
November 16th, 2012 at 4:16 am
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.
No Light:
November 16th, 2012 at 4:57 am
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.
Maureen Brian:
November 16th, 2012 at 5:23 am
That’s magnificent, No Light!
Amphiox:
November 16th, 2012 at 6:23 am
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.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 16th, 2012 at 6:41 am
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
nolajim:
November 16th, 2012 at 6:57 am
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.”
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 16th, 2012 at 6:59 am
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.
nolajim:
November 16th, 2012 at 7:03 am
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.
Beatrice:
November 16th, 2012 at 7:05 am
nolajim
You gave examples of staff sharing opinions about how wonderful their hospital is.
nolajim:
November 16th, 2012 at 7:07 am
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).
nolajim:
November 16th, 2012 at 7:12 am
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.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 16th, 2012 at 7:12 am
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.
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.
Beatrice:
November 16th, 2012 at 7:18 am
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.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 16th, 2012 at 7:18 am
The dead bitch and her husband must be lying
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.
gobi's sockpuppet's meatpuppet:
November 16th, 2012 at 8:02 am
- nolajim
You mean like this drivel? :-
- 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.
rorschach:
November 16th, 2012 at 8:06 am
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.
Amphiox:
November 16th, 2012 at 8:08 am
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.
Ogvorbis: ջարդված:
November 16th, 2012 at 8:16 am
Why is the law ambiguous? Because of the influence, or power, of the Catholic Church withing the politics of Ireland.
dianne:
November 16th, 2012 at 8:28 am
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.
Amphiox:
November 16th, 2012 at 8:37 am
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.
paleotrent:
November 16th, 2012 at 9:11 am
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.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
November 16th, 2012 at 9:20 am
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?
Beatrice:
November 16th, 2012 at 9:23 am
paleotrent,
You shall be terribly missed, my friend. Whoever the hell you are.
Amphiox:
November 16th, 2012 at 9:26 am
It is so fascinating to observe people like paleotrent rushing to judgment about other people “rushing” to judgment.
rr:
November 16th, 2012 at 9:33 am
nolajim:
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.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 16th, 2012 at 9:33 am
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.
Beatrice:
November 16th, 2012 at 9:42 am
Janine
A non-religious reason, you mean.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine":
November 16th, 2012 at 9:55 am
What smells of sock?
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 16th, 2012 at 10:01 am
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.
Rodney Nelson:
November 16th, 2012 at 10:14 am
paleotrent #229
Before you go, remind us of who you are.
dianne:
November 16th, 2012 at 10:19 am
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.
Forelle:
November 16th, 2012 at 10:32 am
From an AI report, here’s another example of the Catholic Church wielding its influence:
. . .
On the other hand, from the same source, certain groups didn’t want total prohibition:
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.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 16th, 2012 at 10:36 am
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.
raven:
November 16th, 2012 at 10:37 am
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.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
November 16th, 2012 at 10:39 am
Raven, you should know me well enough to realize that was very bitter sarcasm.
Some of the other regulars read it that way.
Forelle:
November 16th, 2012 at 10:45 am
This is like poking at a sore tooth.
At the end of the article, a bishop maintains that “it should be possible to save the two lives.”
No Light:
November 16th, 2012 at 10:45 am
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.
Forelle:
November 16th, 2012 at 10:51 am
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.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 16th, 2012 at 10:59 am
nolajim@219:
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’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?
Rutee Katreya:
November 16th, 2012 at 11:02 am
Yo, No Light, can I see you in the Thunderdome? I’m curious about something and this is the first chance I’ve had to ask.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 16th, 2012 at 11:03 am
Ogvorbis:
Careful, don’t confuse nolajim by using influence and power synonymously.
Me, I think it’s time to attack the Catholic Church.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 16th, 2012 at 11:04 am
paleotrent @229:
PLEASE let the door hit you on the way out.
Tony–Queer Duck Overlord of The Bronze–:
November 16th, 2012 at 11:09 am
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.
Does this mean we’re not a hivemind any longer?
Ogvorbis: ջարդված:
November 16th, 2012 at 11:15 am
But xe already told us that was pointless because the RCC is powerless.
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.
Tony ∞ºQueer Duck Hivemind Minionº∞:
November 16th, 2012 at 11:28 am
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?
Rodney Nelson:
November 16th, 2012 at 11:35 am
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.
Tony ∞ºQueer Duck Hivemind Minionº∞:
November 16th, 2012 at 11:42 am
Rodney Nelson:
Oh, I see your secret society entices people with free gifts.
How very Obama like…
No Light:
November 16th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
I’m with Tony. That sounds like sociocommunofascism. Free stuff? Suspicious.
Rutee – I’m in there.
Caine, Divisitrix du mal:
November 16th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
NoLight @210, you just went on my Molly nom list. Great post! Thanks to Maureen Brian for alerting me to it.
No Light:
November 16th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
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.
Giliell, Approved Straight Chorus:
November 16th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
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?
dianne:
November 16th, 2012 at 4:01 pm
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.
John Morales:
November 16th, 2012 at 4:04 pm
The claim: “”
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 —
Tony ∞ºQueer Duck Hivemind Minionº∞:
November 16th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
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.
mesh:
November 16th, 2012 at 6:49 pm
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.
Tony ∞ºQueer Duck Hivemind Minionº∞:
November 16th, 2012 at 6:58 pm
mesh:
well said.
Have you considered delurking more often? You’d fit in nicely here.
mesh:
November 16th, 2012 at 7:48 pm
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.
dianne:
November 17th, 2012 at 9:12 am
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.
mesh:
November 17th, 2012 at 4:40 pm
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.
kinkyjack:
November 19th, 2012 at 11:39 pm
The comments in this blog is funny as always!