Making that presumption is also incorrect. Reserving judgement is the rational position. This is what I am doing - although I will say that if the doctors did say, (as they're alleged to have done) that they could not perform an abortion until the foetal heart had stopped beating - then they are guilty of criminal negligence, and are in breach of their own guide to professional conduct.Seth wrote:
Nope, no change. You have not presented any evidence that there was a "real and
substantial risk to the life (as distinct from the health) of the mother" at the time that the decision not to abort was made.
Given the fact that a doctor can be held criminally liable for making the wrong decision, I sympathize with the reluctance of physicians to perform abortions where the risk is not "real and substantial." Since we don't know if she was evidencing septicemia at that time, as opposed to contracting it after the abortion was provided, you cannot say that the decision of the medical professionals was incorrect. All you know is that she was denied an abortion while the fetus was still alive. My presumption would be, in the U.S. that the doctor I selected is qualified to assess the risks of the pregnancy, including septicemia, in coming to a recommendation for treatment. Now, with socialized medicine in Ireland, it's entirely possible that the underpaid, overworked government doctors were slacking and didn't consider the septic risk or did not detect early signs of septicemia. But if we grant, arguendo, that they were fully qualified and did all the requisite tests, then I would say that the septic infection did not appear till after the baby died and was removed. There are many causes for septicemia, including poor hospital hygiene or a pre-existing infection that was exacerbated by the abortion procedure.
So, until all the facts are in, I'm going to presume that there is no causal connection between the refusal to perform an abortion at one point in time while the fetus was still alive and the eventual septic infection that killed her.
If I had to guess, I'd guess that poor hospital hygiene and surgical practice caused by the inevitable short-cuts and shortages that occur in all socialized medicine systems is likely responsible, not the fact that her abortion was delayed until the fetus was actually dead.
I'm sure time will tell as the qualified (as opposed to you and I) people examine all the relevant factors and come to a medical conclusion about the cause of death.
If the facts are not what has been reported, (and this is entirely possible - because this is a highly emotive topic, and the media is overtly "pro-abortion/pro-choice" and very quick to jump in and inflate a tragic situation into money), then these should come into the public domain, and the medical team will be vindicated (or should be).
One fact is clear - she was denied an abortion while the foetal heart was still beating. If it turns out, that the woman's life was in fact endangered by the pregnancy, then the doctors will have failed to adhere to their code of practice, and deliberately withheld treatment to which she was legally and constitutionally entitled. This is a severe failure, and at the very least would go to question the competence of the medical team involved.
The facts will out, in this case, and we'll see.
Of course, your declarations about "socialised medicine" remain both incorrect and ludicrous. And you are also wrong about the healthcare market in Ireland.
As for fear of legal consequence, that cannot be a consideration, because:
and4 Paramount responsibility to patients
4.1 Your paramount professional responsibility is to act in the best
interests of your patients. This takes priority over responsibilities to
your colleagues and employers.
Refusal to treat
9.1 In exceptional circumstances you may need to consider refusing
specific treatments to individual patients. This must never be
done on the basis of personal discrimination. You might consider
refusing specific treatments because, for example, you consider
that the treatment would not work or that it might cause more
harm than good. You might also consider refusing treatment
where you believe that your patient is unlikely to co-operate or
make the lifestyle changes required to make the treatment effective.
If you decide to refuse treatment, you must explain your
reasons to the patient and offer them an opportunity to review
the decision and/or seek another opinion.
