Here is another interesting article about Ireland (about a year after Savita Halappanavar died and the first legal abortion in Ireland was performed to save a woman's life in a similar circumstance) ... Reference: https://thinkprogress.org/ireland-h...d-a-dying-womans-life-8ecf9fba3b81#.871pzay0c The National Maternity Hospital in Dublin carried out the pregnancy termination for a dying woman whose membrane had ruptured for more than 24 hours. She ran a high risk of sepsis, and her 18-week twin fetuses had no chance of survival outside of the womb. Doctors said her case bore many similarities to that of Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old woman who died after being denied an emergency abortion in an Irish Catholic hospital last year. Halappanavar developed sepsis after she began to miscarry, but doctors wouldn’t terminate her doomed pregnancy until the fetal heartbeat had officially stopped three days later — and by that time, it was too late. The Irish Times reports that in contrast to Halappanavar, the woman who received a legal abortion this month “has made a good recovery after receiving antibiotic treatment and undergoing the termination a number of weeks ago.” More facts for you. Actual doctors believe an abortion would have saved Savita Halappanavar's life. Savita Halappanavar and her husband were convinced an abortion would have saved her life. She died because the Irish government did not give her the right to say "I fear for my life so I want an abortion." You apparently want the US to treat pregnant women the same way... denying their right to self-defense based on fear of death or injury.
It really wasn't. That the doctors assumed the problem was related to the pregnancy was a misdiagnosis like any other. The infant was not the problem, and aborting the infant was not the solution. The pregnancy may have led them to a lazy conclusion, but in reality it was not a contributing factor if they had taken the time to treat her.
I have cited several sources now... and you have cited 0 sources to confirm your ridiculous assertion that she would have died anyway if there had been an abortion. I observe that you also failed to support your repeated contention that the sepsis had nothing to do with her pregnancy. For more actual facts I refer you to: http://www.sepsis.org/sepsis-and/pregnancy-and-childbirth/ Sepsis can occur because of an infection related to the pregnancy or one that is totally unrelated, such as pneumonia or a urinary tract infection (UTI). An article published by the American College of Emergency Physicians in 2012, said that women with maternal sepsis can make up as many as 30% of pregnancy-related sepsis cases admitted to intensive care units in countries like the U.S. The authors found that the most common infections that triggered maternal sepsis were caused by bacteria such as E. coli. Among the list of potential causes of sepsis: Prolonged or obstructed labor (which is documented in this case).
Ok. Please explain how the abortion would have cured the infection. If she had not received an abortion, but had received the correct antibiotics when she first presented, both the mother and the child would still be alive. - - - Updated - - - That's because I'm pretty sure everyone realizes having an abortion doesn't cure E. coli infections in your blood stream. You do understand that right?
I have provided quotes from actual doctors who believe an abortion would have helped her. You repeatedly failed to provide evidence to support your imaginative assertions, so I can only conclude that you are using the Head in the Sand approach to this issue. Your assertions have no value unless you can provide some evidence to back them up.
You're welcome to look up the inquest that was done in the case, and found that an abortion would not have saved her. Her death was classified as "medical misadventure", meaning, like I have been saying, she was misdiagnosed and died due to medical malfeasance. https://cvcomment.org/2013/04/25/what-the-savita-inquest-finally-shows/
Why can't you answer my question? Where did you get your medical degree? BTW, doctors have said that terminating the pregnancy could have saved her life.
Every doctor, nurse, paramedic, enrolled nurse, nurses aide, canteen worker know that you have to remove the source of infection to treat the infection The baby was in all probability dead - this is a hugely significant source of infection and must be removed before the infection can be successfully treated Plus the dead foetus itself would cause a huge risk as degradation products can spill over into the maternal circulation - not to mention the risk of that horrific problem amniotic emboli
You don't need to guess as to what happened, as there was a full inquest done on the matter. The result? Medical error on the part of the physicians. If they had done their jobs when the patient first presented, both would have probably survived according to the report. Link is in one of my responses above. - - - Updated - - - Which links to the inquest done by the Irish legal/medical system, which found an abortion (surprise!) does not stop e. coli infections. - - - Updated - - - And other doctors found out it wouldn't, Dr. Zeffy. In fact, if you look at the report done by the medical team, you can see it would not have saved her life. Again, I point out, abortions do not cause infections to heal. However, GETTING an abortion CAN cause such an infection. Getting an abortion can, and has, killed women by itself. http://www.healthline.com/health/abortion-with-septic-shock#Causes3
Is this where you are getting your "facts"??? Mate there is so much you do NOT know about sepsis it is frightening Sepsis is an overwhelming infection at one end is the person feeling unwell and at the other is full septic shock. Although ti is a continuum disorder septic shock is treated as a separate disorder because at that point we are close to a cascade of problems You have not addressed my points that we cannot treat sepsis without removing the cause https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/gtg_55.pdf Page 12
Yeah, cause I just linked to it at the bottom of my post above. Being pregnant doesn't cause sepsis, but getting an abortion can. Neither is abortion a cure for sepsis. She was not correctly diagnosed with sepsis, and died. Medical error, plain and simple. Not surprisingly, that's what the Irish legal system discovered when they investigated. I'll tell you what. For fun let's run through your scenario. Patient presents, patient and husband (neither of whom are medical doctors...yes yes I know she was a dentist, so what...glorified hole filler) request abortion. Patient receives abortion. Patient goes home. Patient dies from sepsis anyway because the idiot doctors didn't diagnose the actual problem. You're fighting a losing battle here you know.
Here's the findings. Enjoy. https://www.hiqa.ie/system/files/Patient-Safety-Investigation-UHG-Summary.pdf Also, court case "medical misadventure" findings. I.E, the doctors couldn't be bothered to do their jobs correctly. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/heal...nimous-medical-misadventure-verdict-1.1365716
A blog - whereas I linked to the Royal Colledge of Gynacologists guidelines for management of intrauterine death And mate i am not fighting a losing battle because it is not about trying to teach the unteachable it is about helping others on this forum. Including those agreeing with me, to learn more about this complex and difficult disorder.
While this report is not a specific investigation into the death of Savita Halappanavar See page 9 of the report But throughout the report is reference to clinical guidelines - when they talk of those they are referring to guidelines such as those from the RCOG that I posted earlier. Also are you aware that she had not just E Coli but ESBL which is harder to treat because of antibiotics resistance making it even more imperative to remove the source of the infection - the dead foetus What I cannot understand is why you would want to deny abortion in the case of an interuterine death? [/QUOTE] Also, court case "medical misadventure" findings. I.E, the doctors couldn't be bothered to do their jobs correctly. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/heal...nimous-medical-misadventure-verdict-1.1365716[/QUOTE] and the job was to perform an abortion
The job was to save her life. They failed because they did not diagnose her correctly. You can bend and twist all you want with this, but the fact remains: they did not identify the sepsis until it was too late. - - - Updated - - - We had a number of dentists in my old hospital. Not the brightest bulbs on the wall.
... and that malfeasance included their failure to give her an abortion to reduce the strain on her system and their failure to treat the actual patient (Savita) for the fever and signs of infection that they already had. These were not brand new doctors and nurses, the only difference was that they concentrated on saving the fetus instead of concentrating on their actual patient, Savita. How surprising that the Catholic Voices commentary you cite would claim that Catholic dogma had nothing to do with Savita's death. Let's see if their position is supported by any facts: The CV commentary referenced an opinion piece in Ireland's Sunday Independent: http://www.independent.ie/opinion/a...as-set-stage-for-further-furore-29210790.html This article includes the following paragraph: Now that those facts are known, neither side can or should take too much comfort from them. It is clear that Savita died because she had severe sepsis which was not properly treated; an earlier abortion may have saved her life, but the reason she did not get one was because doctors failed to ascertain that her life was in danger. That was the crucial failing. Using that situation to campaign for abortion on the basis of the X case was mischievous at best and insensitive and opportunistic at worst. This confirms that the medical staff made mistakes (we both agree about that). This confirms that (based on the inquest) there was reason to believe an earlier abortion may have saved her life (bad news for your position). This confirms that the abortion was delayed because doctors failed to ascertain that her life was in danger, so (1) Sometimes the pregnant woman's fear is correct and the doctors are ... what is that word? Oh yes... wrong. (2) Catholic dogma creates pressure on medical staff to focus on the fetus instead of the pregnant woman. (3) The fact that they would only consider abortion when they were convinced Savita's life was in danger, delayed critical treatment. The CV commentary referenced an article in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/19/savita-halappanavar-abortion-midwife It includes the following paragraph: The evidence given at the inquest shows unequivocally that Halappanavar would have received different treatment in a different jurisdiction. Astbury admitted as much, and expert witness Dr Peter Boylan has said Halappanavar would most likely be alive if she'd been given a termination, as she requested, within two days of admission to hospital. The CV commentary referenced another article in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/22/anti-abortion-lobby-babrbaric It includes the following paragraph: Halappanavar died of sepsis and E coli; Dr Peter Boylan, the obstetrician giving evidence to the inquest, believes that had Halappanavar received the abortion she requested, she would not have died. Last week the coroner ruled medical misadventure how could he do anything else? Like you said... "medical misadventure" (If they had given her an abortion when she first asked, and concentrated their treatment on the actual patient, Savita, she would probably have survived). The CV commentary then quotes Caroline Farrow (another member of the CV team) in a MercatorNet article: https://www.mercatornet.com/articles/view/the_real_story_of_savitas_tragic_death This article claims "Savita Halappanavar died from septic shock resulting from an E.coli bacterial infection which had entered her bloodstream via the urinary tract." (but I observe that other references include prolonged or obstructed labor and ruptured membranes as potential sources of bacterial infection... Interesting that the author did not cite a reference for her claim) More from Caroline Farrow: "Opinion is divided as to whether or not a termination would helped Savita. The presence of an infection is a contraindication to surgical intervention, because the clamps and forceps required in a procedure risk further infection." In other words, the Catholic Voice writer has acknowledged that it is possible that a termination would have helped Savita Halappanavar, and (as she grasps for straws to reinforce the Catholic position) the author claims maybe the surgical team would be so careless as to improperly sterilize the equipment for the abortion, so that might have kept the abortion from saving her. She goes on to say "Furthermore Savitas unborn child was not the source of her bacterial infection, the uterus and membranes being a sterile environment." She makes the assertion (with no evidence) that the unborn child was not the source of the infection based on a false claim (that the uterus and membranes are a sterile environment). That is a false generalization. Conclusion: Even your Catholic Voice source admits that the abortion might have saved her. Naturally, the doctors would still have to treat the sepsis, but her chances would have been much better after the abortion because (1) her resources are no longer being drained by the fetus, and (2) the staff would no longer be distracted by waiting around for the fetal heartbeat to cease so they could concentrate on the actual person they were supposed to be treating. If you want to claim that Savita would certainly have died anyway, you will need to find better evidence to support your claim.
So your crystal ball tells you that if she had an abortion she would have lived huh? Well, getting an abortion could have killed her too. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Fact remains: she was misdiagnosed, and the official inquest cited that misdiagnosis as the cause of death. I'll let you get back to your imaginative conjectures. - - - Updated - - - Treatment of an infection does not require the death of a fetus to cure.
What part of dead foetus are you not getting??? Her waters broke - there was no foetal movement and no evidence of foetal heart beat Even if there were her waters had broken that means she was likely to have a late term miscarriage in any event and the pregnancy was unlikely to result in a viable baby
He doesn't he is making an assumption and trying to defend the indefensible I have worked in a Catholic Hospital and saw an abortion done there - very very rare occurrence and yes we thought we would lose her at one point but it proved to me beyond doubt that there are some situations where abortion is absolutely medically neccessary - - - Updated - - - Then you could have started antibiotics then but as soon as her waters ruptured she should have been listened to and given an abortion
