skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Abortion in Ireland
Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old Indian immigrant to Ireland, recently passed away due to complications with her pregnancy. Seventeen weeks after conception, Halappanavar sought medical help due to extreme back pain and was told that the baby would probably die. Halappanavar and her husband requested an abortion to relieve her of the pain, but were denied. They were told that, because Ireland is a predominately Catholic country, an abortion could not be carried out while the fetus was still alive. Under Irish law, an abortion is legal is a mother's life is at risk. However, this apparently differs from situations where a mother's health is at risk (yeah, it doesn't make too much sense to me, either). Doctor's believed that Halappanavar's life wasn't at risk. Three days after requesting an abortion, Halappanav's fetus died and was removed; four days later Halappanav died from a blood infection.
After Savita's death, her husband, Praveen Hallapanav, made an inquiry about the circumstances of his wife's death. However, the medical records seem to have been tampered with. According to Praveen, there is no record of a request for an abortion. Are healthcare workers in America just as capable of ignoring the law? Many American women are denied abortion when the pregnancy threatens their health even though denying abortion in such a case is illegal under Roe v. Wade. Aside from the blatant corruption of healthcare officials, it seems completely illogical for officials to have denied the Hallapanav's an abortion when they knew that the baby would die. Savita's death has prompted outrage not only in Ireland but across the world, for Ireland's strict abortion laws are not all that different from the de facto laws in some parts of our country. Is Savita's death more proof that we need to reform our system of dealing with abortions?
8 comments:
Although abortion law in Ireland is different than that of the US, it seems as though the same issue of promoting ambiguity for the sake of withholding the rights of others (often in the name of strong personal belief) has made its way into the women's health debate. As this article explains (in the last few paragraphs), "Currently, a medical termination is permitted when the life - as opposed to the health - of a mother is at risk... pro-life campaigners argue that the existing guidelines allow doctors to intervene to treat women where necessary, even if that treatment indirectly results in the death of the baby." Since when has it become socially acceptable to promote vague legislation in hopes that semantics will more often than not favor your personal belief over clarity and public well-being...? On the other hand, the investigation of this particular circumstance is not yet conclusive, and this may very well have been a tragically unfortunate but rare mistake.
When a woman's health is at risk and she seeks help, it is her doctor's responsibility to do whatever necessary to make the patient better. A pregnant woman should be able to expect this of her doctor, just like any other individual who is in need of medical attention. I think that keeping religion, politics, and medicine completely separate is the only solution that will prevent incidents like this from happening again--if any of those factors are affecting each other, someone is doing something wrong. It seems to me that this is the case in this particular situation, however Olivia makes a very good point, it could very well have been simply a mistake, albeit a terrible one.
This is exactly why I believe in pro-choice abortion. Because the difference between the woman's "life" and "health" being at risk is so ambiguous, I feel that it is difficult to fairly define. Clearly, this case was not fair at all, as Halappanavar ended up dying along with her fetus.
The fact that this predominately-Catholic nation frowns upon abortions was clearly a factor in this tragic situation. Doctors may have been more reluctant to authorize the abortion because of personal, religious, or country-wide values that are centered around the idea that abortion = "bad." I'm not sure how much this was a factor in Halappanavar's situation, but it is certainly something to consider.
I also think that the doctor's personal, religious, or country-wide values were involved. However, I also think that one's own personal beliefs should not determine the future, or even life, of another. As doctors, they should be well aware of this in my opinion. I was very shocked when reading this situation about the difference between life threatening and health threatening. Reform is definitely needed in order to avoid such tragic events.
I think that although this event was tragic and unfortunate, it should not be the motivating force behind abortion law reforms in Ireland/America. Savita died of complications in her pregnancy that really could not have been foreseen or prevented. Sure if she had gotten the abortion she might still be alive today, but no one knew that waiting would lead to blood poisoning, since the nature of complications are that they aren't expected. Therefore, from the given information, it seems like it wasn't the backwards abortion law that is at fault for her death.
I agree with Carly, this is a perfect example of why people should be allowed to choose if they want an abortion. If she felt unsafe and that her life was at risk she should have been allowed to get an abortion. Deaths like this are the exact reason why people should be allowed to get an abortion. Not only did the baby die but the mom did as well.
I think that the thought of records being tampered with is disgusting. The doctors know they messed up and made a mistake and are trying to cover it up by saying she never requested an abortion.
I agree with both Alexis and Carly. This article reaffirms my belief in pro-choice abortions. I think that the US should look at this as a warning, and hopefully it will give our government the incentive to change our abortion policy. So many states have incredibly strict laws regarding abortion and I think that it's unfair that these sometimes ridiculous measures can stand in the way of a woman's health and happiness. As many of you have said, the line between and woman's "health" and her "life" is so blurred that it's nearly impossible to tell the difference in some circumstances. Also doctors aren't always correct. As evidenced by Savita Halappanavar's death, doctors can't always be certain if something is just detrimental to a woman's health or if it could actually cause death. I think that women should be able to take their lives into their own hands and if they feel that they would be safer or happier with an abortion, that they should be able to make that decision, not the government.
Post a Comment