Jump to content

Talk:Death of Savita Halappanavar/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

HSE recommendations

Also Boundarylayer, the HSE report, in Recommendation 4b, says:

"We recommend that the clinical professional community, health and social care regulators, and the Oireachtas consider the law including any necessary constitutional change and related administrative, legal and clinical guidelines in relation to the management of inevitable miscarriage in the early second trimester of a pregnancy including with prolonged rupture of membranes and where the risk to the mother increases with time from the time that membranes were ruptured including the risk of infection. These guidelines should include good practice guidelines in relation to expediting delivery for clinical reasons including medical and surgical termination based on available expertise and feasibility consistent with the law. We recognise that such guidelines must be consistent with applicable law and that the guidance so urged may require legal change.

That is what it says. Jytdog (talk) 02:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


Again, it does not state as you have erroneously written in the article, that the "HSE also recommended changes to the legal situation". As you seem unaware that what you just pointed out, is actually saying far less than what you have drawn from it. Here it recommends the Oireachtas "consider the law and any [legal] changes if it's needed in "relation" to saving the life of the mother" & then continues that; to do such&such, you know, "may" require legal change. So please do not editorialize. It really does not say "we recommend legal changes to the legal situation". A pretty POV and entirely unsourced statement. As it is actually saying : if required to reduce the risk to the life of the mother, then the oireachtas should consider changing the law. Which incidentally, the Oireachtas is apparently still doing, they're still here at 4 years later, trying to figure out if the law needs changing to maximize the survival prospects of mothers.
The Coroner's report and HIQA report and indeed parts of the HSE/Arkulumaran et. al report itself, they all specify simple legal "clarity" be made, including at the beginning of 4b. A recommendation which you curiously truncated here in this comment. The word clarity is specifically used as a particular consultant held an utterly erroneous understanding of the law, as revealed in the hearings.
Coroner - "Recommend that the Medical Council lay out exactly when a doctor can intervene to save the life of the mother in similar circumstances, which will remove doubt and fear from the doctor and also reassure the public." i.e "legal clarity".
HSE pg 73 "Clarity as to the application of the law in a situation where it may be necessary for a doctor to consider, in the exercise of their clinical professional judgement, the termination of a pregnancy in the clinical welfare interest of their patient". 4b also begins with the words There is an immediate and urgent requirement for a clear statement of the legal context...
| They all speak to "clarity", as the HSE report states that: "The interpretation of the law related to lawful termination in Ireland is considered to have been a material contributory factor." Arkulumaran et. al continues: "The consultant clearly thought that the risk to the mother had not crossed the point where termination was allowable(early Oct 24) in Irish law.". - It does not say the actual law was considered to be a material contributory factor nor does it say it played a "major role", as recently suggested by Arkulumaran in the media, either.
As you can see or maybe read up on, the consultant wasn't clear on the actual law. Changing the law is perhaps not specifically recommended as this consultant already seems to have had difficulty with understanding the 4 to 5 sentences, that contain both the grand total of Irish laws pretaining to protecting the life of the Mother, along with the entirety of Irish OBGYN guidelines. In fact, it sounds like the very notion of adding sentences might be the type of thing that would just confuse them further. So the coroner and HSE uses the words "legal clarity" and "requirement for a clear statement", repeatedly.
So as the word "clarity" is used by the HSE report itself along with the recommendations of the coroner and the specific recommendation of 4b actually begins with a sentence on making things super-clear. I think it pretty incontrovertible that what you claim in the article would be classified as a case of "not in citation given". I don't want to tag it as such, so will we go back to "clarity". That is, what the inquests actually recommend?
Boundarylayer (talk) 07:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
"Changes to the legal situation" was meant to concisely and broadly cover clarification and/or changes to the law. Only clarifying the law's interpretation (the minimum they called for) would be "changing the legal situation". Changing the law itself would also be "changing the legal situation". I would be fine with the more expanded "recommended that the law be reviewed and revised if needed, in light of medical needs of women having miscarriages, and making changes to medical guidelines and the training for medical staff," but that is much less concise. Jytdog (talk) 15:43, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I acknowledge your latter paragraphs appreciation of trying to better reflect the source. I would be fine with the more concise "recommended legal clarity [training etc] and if needed, further review of the law". As to otherwose suggest fully that the entire HSE team believe that "the law needs to change" with all that statement is associated with, is to pull a lot of people into saying something, that they did not actually say.
Boundarylayer (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Wow - that's a lot of speculation and original interpretation you're engaging in, Boundarylayer. We call that synthesis. Jytdog's original wording is fine, in the context of Recommendation 4b. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:29, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
We actually reached agreement here on the article content -- no need for further discussion as far as I can see. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Text appears fine following your revert of an earlier edit by Boundarylayer, selectively quoting from a newspaper article ignoring the quotes in the same article that don't support their argument. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

With respect to the agreement that we reached and you refer to, on the wording Jytdog, just so there is no ambiguity and misunderstanding. But that wording is - "recommended legal clarity, training of clinicians on the law and if needed, further review of the law". - Would this be a fair understanding?

Boundarylayer (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your note on my talk page here, clarifying that when you made this edit, you were just moving it, not agreeing with it. I have unclosed this section. Will respond to your note above in a moment. Jytdog (talk) 23:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
about "recommended legal clarity, training of clinicians on the law and if needed, further review of the law" -- this is a new proposal. I don't agree to that. "recommended legal clarity" is too vague from my perspective. This is something we can easily have an RfC on. Is that the language you want to propose for the RfC, or do you want to refine it more? Jytdog (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I think we can take the example made by the HSE press release on this editorial matter, which in its entirety, summarizes recommendation 4b as follows "Recommendation 4b There is immediate and urgent requirement for a clear statement of the legal context in which clinical professional judgement can be exercised in the best medical welfare interests of patients. The implementation of this recommendation is beyond the role of the HSE."
Therefore, "legal clarity" is the official summary of recommendation 4b Jytdog, not changes to the law.
Boundarylayer (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
You have a different interpretation of language to the rest of us, I think. A press release is in no way "an official summary" of anything. It's just a press release. Nothing more. A recommendation that includes the phrase "the clinical professional community, health and social care regulators, and the Oireachtas consider the law including any necessary constitutional change and related administrative, legal and clinical guidelines" simply cannot be summarised as "legal clarity." To do so would be playing fast and loose with the truth. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Are you arguing with me, or the HSE? The manner in which the HSE chose to summarize all the HSE recommendations, is by definition, the official summary of the recommendations. I am curious what you would call their summary instead? The official press release summary of the recommendations? Secondly, despite the official HSE press release, discussing legal clarity only. Which is clear upon reading it. I have proposed the article edit: "recommended legal clarity, training of clinicians on the law and if needed, further review of the law". Which seems inordinately fair and balanced, yet you disagree?
Boundarylayer (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
A press release is a press release. Nothing more. What's hard to understand about that? The recommendation in full is not that long, and calls for "the clinical professional community, health and social care regulators, and the Oireachtas [to] consider the law including any necessary constitutional change" - no "if needed". Your proposed wording is not acceptable. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I just wish to point out that the phrase "if needed", has been decided upon by both Jytdog and myself. It was that editor that suggested the article read : "recommended that the law be reviewed and revised if needed, in light of medical needs of women having miscarriages, and making changes to medical guidelines and the training for medical staff,".
Boundarylayer (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Changing it say/imply only "legal clarity" instead of "legal change" is false, since that's not what it says. BL is once again misrepresenting a clear source to suite the political agenda of exonerating Ireland abortion laws. ____Ebelular (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Lede too long?

I'm probabluy (re-)opening a can of worms, but I wonder if the lede, as it current is, is too long and detailed? From sentence 2 of the article, we get detailed details about what the medical team was thinking, what drugs she got, etc. Most of which is covered later in the article. the WP MoS for the lead says it sounds be " a concise overview of the article's topic", and "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". I think that getting into drug perscriptions by paragraph 4 is too detailed. ____Ebelular (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Death of Savita Halappanavar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used in this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The file Savita Halappanavar.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the Commons file description page. Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Keep bias out of facts

Is it necessary to include “under the influence of the Catholic Church” regarding the restriction against abortion in Ireland? Creme1219 (talk) 16:50, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I think it's relevant. "This is a Catholic country" was said while she was dying, and that made news stories all over the world. The catholic church were strong supporters of the 8th amendment, and the Irish state argued in international courts that it's a semi-religious significance. A section heading like "Keep bias out of facts" is not very clear or helpful Ebelular (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Coverage of News Coverage

It's not clear to me the contrarian writing in Irish Independent attacking coverage of Irish Times from behind a pay wall meets inclusion criteria for this article. BenthicDepths (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It would appear to be be WP:UNDUE - I have removed it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 23:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Bias information

I have made four attempts to add factual information into this piece and have been denied each time . Wikepedia is suppsoe to be open to all people to edit but seemingly only to those who have a certain stance or follow non factual information . RIP Savita Ernesto parot (talk) 10:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

No, you made four attempts to add your opinion, and/or, frankly, nonsense, to the article, none of it backed by sources. What does "It is not not yet known if The pregnancy was a miscarriage or an abortion induced by abortifacients" even mean? Likewise, "Although this would not have been necessary as the pregnancy needed to be induced in order for a D&E (dilate and evacuate) procedure to take place ." What?! None of that makes any sense. "This resulted in the expired fetal remains remaining in Savitas womb which when overlooked would lead to sepsis (blood poisoning)and death." is factually incorrect. You do know there was both a coroner's inquest and an independent inquiry? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Gript is not a reliable source. Please stop adding your opinion to the article. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:45, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar/Archive_2&oldid=1117526922"