The danger of over-ruling doctors

Conservatives know everything there is to know, because they are 'principle-based.' Anyone who goes outside the principle is allowed to die to preserve the righteousness of the principle that legislators know everything. Legislators aren't held accountable for the deaths they cause.

.

"Lawmakers in the Republic of Ireland have voted to legalise abortion under certain conditions for the first time.

The move, approved by a 127-31 vote in the lower house (Dáil), would authorise a termination when doctors deem that a woman is at risk of taking her life. It needs upper house endorsement, too.

The vote follows the case of an Indian woman who died in hospital after she was refused an abortion.

...

Those who support access to abortion say the bill ignores the fact that, on average, 11 women leave the country every day for an abortion in Britain.

Since a Supreme Court ruling in 1992, known as the X case, abortion has been constitutionally available when a woman's life, as distinct from her health, is at risk from the continued pregnancy.

...

But in the intervening years, until now, no government has introduced legislation to give doctors legal certainty on when an abortion can be carried out.

Failures

And that uncertainty provided part of the context for the Savita Halappanavar case.

She was a 31-year-old Indian dentist who was admitted to hospital in Galway in October 2012 while miscarrying.

  The death of Savita Halappanavar drew attention to the lack of clarity about the legal position

She died a week later from septicaemia.

Her request for an abortion was turned down.

Her inquest heard that she could not get a termination at the time because her life was not in danger but, by the time her life was at risk, an abortion would have been too late to save her."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23277590

 

To leave a comment, please sign in with
or or

Comments (2)

  1. Neighsayer

    empty rhetoric . . .

    July 14, 2013
    1. GoldenPig2012

      Because……………………?

      July 14, 2013
      1. Neighsayer

        the Irish law, with the undefined ’mother’s risk of death’ is empty rhetoric, is what I was saying. Certainty that a foetus is going to kill a mother has got to be a pretty rare situation. But of course, medicine is difficult and unpredictable. On further thought, I’m just happy they’ve decided that the mother’s life trumps the foetus’ life in any situation at all. It’s an important fundamental and symbolic step. Maybe it will prepare the way for more meaningful decisions.

        July 14, 2013
        1. GoldenPig2012

          Thanks for the clarification. I agree.

          July 14, 2013
          1. Neighsayer

            I knew I wasn’t explaining myself with that. Sorry.

            July 14, 2013
            1. GoldenPig2012

              Don’t worry about it, I just don’t want to jump to any conclusions.

              July 14, 2013
  2. livelonger

    I’m happy that a mostly Catholic Christian nation can agree to protect the life of the mother, whether there’s the ‘right to life’ argument or not. It may be temporary until another ‘principle over reality’ person starts the argument again.

    July 14, 2013
  3. thoughtsbroque

    From one who generally feels strongly against legalised abortion, the mother’s life should be a consideration since she is already in the world and trading one life for another is, in my opinion, not ethical.

    March 30, 2015
    1. livelonger

      That’s a FAR more sophisticated understanding of the situation than wingnuts who say there shouldn’t be any at all, ever.

      March 30, 2015