• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • To post you need to register an account and await approval. Click Here to sign up!

Twitter is interfering in Irish abortion referendum by shadow banning Pro Life accounts

Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
4,314
Likes
6,473
Points
263
Location
The land of the golden potato
#21
Pot kettle here I think.

You lot have bullied the shit out of the very few pro choice advocates that dare to post on this very forum.

Personally I don't dare post any more on the "pro life" threads here for fear of further mobbing and personal attacks.

And the open hostility from certain "pro life" posters has spread beyond just those threads
The bullying comes from abortion militants picking on the most vulnerable and innocent of all the human family. A good fraction of those types would be dead if it wasn't for the 8th amendment, they've been left forgotten and nameless as items of medical waste. Then when normal people respond to these attacks on the nation's young with a clear view on what abortion really entails beyond the marketing jargon they get smeared by abortion militants. And when people get smeared, they don't sit on their hands and let that happen. And that's the pattern that has been emerging with these abortion disputes. When extreme views are aired, don't be surprised to get a shocked response in return. Particularly with people who espouse animal rights but regard babies in the womb as totally and utterly disposable.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Legend
Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
23,653
Likes
19,241
Points
313
#22
How do you know you're shadowbanned?
Good way to check if you are shadowbanned is to tweet something and check the account of someone who follows you to see if it pops up their stream. Though twitter could limit a user's reach by only pushing their tweets into a percentage of your followers' streams.
However, I'd be cautious of definitively accusing them of shadow-banning you.
It's fairly difficult to get a tweet noticed on twitter especially for new accounts with few followers.
Most people probably see about 1 - 3% of the tweets posted by people they follow unless they sort the users they flollow into lists and check those.
When I log in to the main page, I'll just see the 10 tweets posted in the last 10 minutes until I check my lists or what people are talking about in my groups.
You can try and boost your signal by using hashtags or by being among the first tweeters who responds to someone famous.
Twitter really works best for famous people but it's a decent way to get a news stream too and snipe at opponents.

You can also check your username with this,

Shadow Ban Checker
 

GodsDog

Member
Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
1,140
Likes
1,201
Points
163
Location
Gombeenia
#23
The bullying comes from abortion militants picking on the most vulnerable and innocent of all the human family. A good fraction of those types would be dead if it wasn't for the 8th amendment, they've been left forgotten and nameless as items of medical waste. Then when normal people respond to these attacks on the nation's young with a clear view on what abortion really entails beyond the marketing jargon they get smeared by abortion militants. And when people get smeared, they don't sit on their hands and let that happen. And that's the pattern that has been emerging with these abortion disputes. When extreme views are aired, don't be surprised to get a shocked response in return. Particularly with people who espouse animal rights but regard babies in the womb as totally and utterly disposable.
Well I suppose I should be grateful spud has managed to respond without totally peppering his post with personal insults, only managing the one unsubstantiated inference that the poster he is responding to is somehow abnormal. Perhaps we'll make a civil poster out of you yet spud! :p

Pity about the hyperbole though! And the false dichotomy.
And of course the misrepresentation of another poster's views.

Yeah babies in the womb are totally and utterly disposable. That's exactly what I said :rolleyes: /sarc

No mention of the 12 week limit of course
or the rights of the woman. Or rape victims. Or fatal fetal abnormalities etc etc.

From the very person complaining that I misrepresent him!! Irony!

This forum has 2-3 people at most who (openly) dare to oppose the 8th here.

Everyone else here seemingly is "pro life". Fine.
But how spud can, with a straight face, paint himself and the other "pro life" advocates as the victims
on such a forum when anyone and his dog can see that the opposite applies here, I fail to understand!

My views on the unborn are consistent for both animals and humans.
The rights of the mother always trump the rights of the foetus in early gestation

As the gestation progresses further, the argument for the mother
and her offspring having asymmetric rights becomes less and less clear cut.
A reasonable line needs to be drawn for practical purposes.
This will vary from species to species.

In the case of humans 12 weeks is where the limit is normally set for a number of medical
and social reasons. It provides a balance between being enough time
for any reasonable human mother to become aware of the pregnancy, get tests and make their decision
and for medical and ethical considerations to be satisfied too.

Once born and independent of it's mother's womb, the entity gains full equal rights
to it's fellow creatures.

Sadly in the case of animals you seem to so despise, mostly these rights are virtually non existent
as folks like yourself think nothing of their systematic suffering and deaths in droves for everything from supplying you with cheap meat so you can stuff your fat face, to testing different shades of yet another "me too" makeup for skin irritation effects.

My ethics in this regard would seem far more consistent than your own laughable "pick and mix" charade.
You however persist in promulgating this risible false dichotomy between animal and human rights.
All species have a right to exist on this rock without unnecessary slaughter or torture.


Now once again I repeat my request spud.
Please put me on ignore and stop responding to my posts.

You are seemingly incapable of respectful informative dialogue as Tadhg and some others here are
and I don't wish to waste my time having to wade through your tedious pompous uninformative barbed responses.

You have indicated at various times that you believe I'm "hallucinating", "not normal", "chimping", "screeching" etc, and have persisted in lacing your posts responding to mine with these and a multitude of other similar insulting epithets.
So obviously you don't like my posts either!

So why then not do us both a favour and accede to my request?
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
4,314
Likes
6,473
Points
263
Location
The land of the golden potato
#24
Well I suppose I should be grateful spud has managed to respond without totally peppering his post with personal insults, only managing the one unsubstantiated inference that the poster he is responding to is somehow abnormal. Perhaps we'll make a civil poster out of you yet spud! :p

Pity about the hyperbole though! And the false dichotomy.
And of course the misrepresentation of another poster's views.

Yeah babies in the womb are totally and utterly disposable. That's exactly what I said :rolleyes: /sarc

No mention of the 12 week limit of course
or the rights of the woman. Or rape victims. Or fatal fetal abnormalities etc etc.

From the very person complaining that I misrepresent him!! Irony!

This forum has 2-3 people at most who (openly) dare to oppose the 8th here.

Everyone else here seemingly is "pro life". Fine.
But how spud can, with a straight face, paint himself and the other "pro life" advocates as the victims
on such a forum when anyone and his dog can see that the opposite applies here, I fail to understand!

My views on the unborn are consistent for both animals and humans.
The rights of the mother always trump the rights of the foetus in early gestation

As the gestation progresses further, the argument for the mother
and her offspring having asymmetric rights becomes less and less clear cut.
A reasonable line needs to be drawn for practical purposes.
This will vary from species to species.

In the case of humans 12 weeks is where the limit is normally set for a number of medical
and social reasons. It provides a balance between being enough time
for any reasonable human mother to become aware of the pregnancy, get tests and make their decision
and for medical and ethical considerations to be satisfied too.

Once born and independent of it's mother's womb, the entity gains full equal rights
to it's fellow creatures.

Sadly in the case of animals you seem to so despise, mostly these rights are virtually non existent
as folks like yourself think nothing of their systematic suffering and deaths in droves for everything from supplying you with cheap meat so you can stuff your fat face, to testing different shades of yet another "me too" makeup for skin irritation effects.

My ethics in this regard would seem far more consistent than your own laughable "pick and mix" charade.
You however persist in promulgating this risible false dichotomy between animal and human rights.
All species have a right to exist on this rock without unnecessary slaughter or torture.


Now once again I repeat my request spud.
Please put me on ignore and stop responding to my posts.

You are seemingly incapable of respectful informative dialogue as Tadhg and some others here are
and I don't wish to waste my time having to wade through your tedious pompous uninformative barbed responses.

You have indicated at various times that you believe I'm "hallucinating", "not normal", "chimping", "screeching" etc, and have persisted in lacing your posts responding to mine with these and a multitude of other similar insulting epithets.
So obviously you don't like my posts either!

So why then not do us both a favour and accede to my request?
And you have some cheek to be speaking of civility given your sectarian insults about religious people, your insults against pro-lifers and your crazed insults against disabled people. And then you run around and pretend that I've broken some covenant on politeness? I'm not having that, son. You can take your sectarian viciousness to the roof for all I care. It's how the internet ticks, I'm long acclimatised to it. But don't be flabbergasted that you get a few choice words in return nevertheless. The internet also rolls like that.

There's no real "12 week limit", it's full term essentially based on "mental health" grounds similar to the carnage Britain has. "12 weeks" is useful to the regime in pretending that there's some sort of restriction on it. But doctors are not going to refuse abortions when approached; that's the eventual realpolitik of this. It's all championed by FG austerity vampires, Soros and the O'Brien media and that should tell us all we need to know about where all this is going. Nor is there an intrinsic moral difference between a child at an early stage of gestation and a child asleep in the crib. The 8th amendment which values and saves both lives if is practical to do so. It even uses the word 'practical'. So women's lives are never jeopardised under the two patient approach if the 8th amendment is actually followed.

I don't use the ignore button. I'm happy and relaxed to correct any mistruths coming from you. Indeed, I'm morally obliged to do so. Countering abortion propaganda is my small way of helping both mothers and children.
 
Last edited:

GodsDog

Member
Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
1,140
Likes
1,201
Points
163
Location
Gombeenia
#25
And you have some cheek to be speaking of civility given your sectarian insults about religious people, your insults against pro-lifers and your crazed insults against disabled people. And then you run around and pretend that I've broken some covenant on politeness? I'm not having that, son. You can take your sectarian viciousness to the roof for all I care. It's how the internet ticks, I'm long acclimatised to it. But don't be flabbergasted that you get a few choice words in return nevertheless. The internet also rolls like that.

There's no real "12 week limit", it's full term essentially based on "mental health" grounds similar to the carnage Britain has. "12 weeks" is useful to the regime in pretending that there's some sort of restriction on it. But doctors are not going to refuse abortions when approached; that's the eventual realpolitik of this. It's all championed by FG austerity vampires, Soros and the O'Brien media and that should tell us all we need to know about where all this is going. Nor is there an intrinsic moral difference between a child at an early stage of gestation and a child asleep in the crib. The 8th amendment which values and saves both lives if is practical to do so. It even uses the word 'practical'. So women's lives are never jeopardised under the two patient approach if the 8th amendment is actually followed.

I don't use the ignore button. I'm happy and relaxed to correct any mistruths coming from you. Indeed, I'm morally obliged to do so. Countering abortion propaganda is my small way of helping both mothers and children.
That was almost civil! Thank you.
If you keep this up we may actually be able to have a dialogue, despite our opposing views.
I welcome your efforts.

And if you continue to be this civil then I'm "happy and relaxed" to politely correct any mistruths
coming from you too. Detente and adult discourse is always so much better than war isn't it? :p

You are right of course, our witterings on PI are certainly not what will decide this.

You are wrong however as regards the 8th amendment saving lives.
It merely displaces them geographically and penalises poorer women asymmetrically.

In fact as history has shown, if anything the legal uncertainty around the 8th coupled with medical people's paranoia over potential legal problems and staff members with religious views will contribute to added inertia in certain time critical situations hence further unnecessary deaths of fully developed humans in our hospitals a la Savita , as will any medical complications from foreign abortions not being reported or treated here due to the climate of stigma and legal uncertainty.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
4,314
Likes
6,473
Points
263
Location
The land of the golden potato
#26
You are wrong however as regards the 8th amendment saving lives.
It merely displaces them geographically and penalises poorer women asymmetrically.
I'm not wrong. Abortion takes the life of a baby. It's prohibition saves most of those lives. Only a number are then displaced (a portion of which will be for reasons of convenience) and that number has been shrinking the past decade or so. The call should be for the state to furnish support for mother and child and not simply herd distressed women into an abattoir furnished by the most abysmal and subversive elements of the regime. We must fight our subjugation not meekly surrender to it.

In fact as history has shown, if anything the legal uncertainty around the 8th coupled with medical people's paranoia over potential legal problems and staff members with religious views will contribute to added inertia in certain time critical situations hence further unnecessary deaths of fully developed humans in our hospitals a la Savita , as will any medical complications from foreign abortions not being reported or treated here due to the climate of stigma and legal uncertainty.
Official Ireland has been promoting paranoia regarding the legal situation for the past 20/25 years but as I say the 8th includes the word practical. As long as there is a surgical window to save lives then this should be pursued just like any other critical medical crisis. "Legal uncertainty" can crop up in any medical situation outside the maternal situation just the same. It's no excuse not to pursue a platinum standard of medical care that pivots around noone being disposable. And you don't lower your standards because you might have confused staff or something. Train the blasted staff to their job.

Abortion had nothing to do with Savita's death save that abortion activists used her as a prop to plug the death clinic. Pro-lifers have no objection to withdrawing a dying baby to safeguard the mother. This position has been articulated by pro-lifers at least since the early 90s and backed up by the Medical Guidelines as well. The medical staff in Galway didn't know what was wrong with Savita until it was too late. Withdrawing a dying child may have even compounded her medical condition. You just don't blunder into performing aggressive surgery without knowing what's going on. The whole Savita thing is so emotive in the public square because she said she wanted an 'abortion'. 'She was refused her dying wishes' underpins that emotion. But the process of invading her interior may have accelerated her death! There's often a wild divergence between one's passions and distress in the moment and what is the right approach to take in medical terms. And this can be so for anyone.
 

GodsDog

Member
Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
1,140
Likes
1,201
Points
163
Location
Gombeenia
#27
I'm not wrong. Abortion takes the life of a baby. It's prohibition saves most of those lives. Only a number are then displaced (a portion of which will be for reasons of convenience) and that number has been shrinking the past decade or so. The call should be for the state to furnish support for mother and child and not simply herd distressed women into an abattoir furnished by the most abysmal and subversive elements of the regime. We must fight our subjugation not meekly surrender to it.


Official Ireland has been promoting paranoia regarding the legal situation for the past 20/25 years but as I say the 8th includes the word practical. As long as there is a surgical window to save lives then this should be pursued just like any other critical medical crisis. "Legal uncertainty" can crop up in any medical situation outside the maternal situation just the same. It's no excuse not to pursue a platinum standard of medical care that pivots around noone being disposable. And you don't lower your standards because you might have confused staff or something. Train the blasted staff to their job.

Abortion had nothing to do with Savita's death save that abortion activists used her as a prop to plug the death clinic. Pro-lifers have no objection to withdrawing a dying baby to safeguard the mother. This position has been articulated by pro-lifers at least since the early 90s and backed up by the Medical Guidelines as well. The medical staff in Galway didn't know what was wrong with Savita until it was too late. Withdrawing a dying child may have even compounded her medical condition. You just don't blunder into performing aggressive surgery without knowing what's going on. The whole Savita thing is so emotive in the public square because she said she wanted an 'abortion'. 'She was refused her dying wishes' underpins that emotion. But the process of invading her interior may have accelerated her death! There's often a wild divergence between one's passions and distress in the moment and what is the right approach to take in medical terms. And this can be so for anyone.
To my knowledge you are unqualified to say this.
The prominent medical consultant interviewed on TV however
said the opposite. That acting on her wishes for a termination
on monday or tuesday would in his medical opinion have prevented her death
but the law prevented this. The very law you are trying to make us keep.

SAVITA Halappanavar would most likely have lived had she received a termination within two days of her admission to Galway University Hospital, an expert witness told her inquest.
However, Dr Peter Boylan said that under Irish law this could not have been carried out because there was "not a real and substantial risk to her life at that stage".
The former master of the National Maternity Hospital in Dublin said that in his opinion the 31-year-old woman would have survived had the termination been carried out on the Monday or Tuesday.
"Had Mrs Halappanavar's pregnancy been terminated on Monday, October 22 or Tuesday, October 23, it is highly likely on the balance of probability that she would not have died. Termination at that time was not a practical proposition because of the law," he said.

He told the inquest that he did not believe carrying out a termination on Mrs Halappanavar from Wednesday onwards would have saved her life as her condition was too serious at that stage.
"The real problem was the inability to terminate the pregnancy prior to Mrs Halappanavar developing a real and substantial risk of death.
Savita would have been saved by early termination, says expert - Independent.ie
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Legend
Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
23,653
Likes
19,241
Points
313
#29
To my knowledge you are unqualified to say this.
The prominent medical consultant interviewed on TV however
said the opposite. That acting on her wishes for a termination
on monday or tuesday would in his medical opinion have prevented her death
but the law prevented this. The very law you are trying to make us keep.



Savita would have been saved by early termination, says expert - Independent.ie
Boylan is a known liar for his Abortionist cause. He recently claimed that Down Syndrome couldn't be diagnosed until the 12th week. In reality, companies are advertising tests at 10 weeks. As for that interview, the autopsy found otherwise. The miscarriage was more likely caused by the E Coli infection rather than the other way round. Particularly given that it was a form of E Coli more common in her own country than Ireland.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
4,314
Likes
6,473
Points
263
Location
The land of the golden potato
#30
To my knowledge you are unqualified to say this.
The prominent medical consultant interviewed on TV however
said the opposite. That acting on her wishes for a termination
on monday or tuesday would in his medical opinion have prevented her death
but the law prevented this. The very law you are trying to make us keep.



Savita would have been saved by early termination, says expert - Independent.ie
It's common-sense in the realm of anyone to deduce if they just think it through. You don't perform aggressive surgery on someone without knowing what's wrong with that patient. Someone is hacking with a throat condition but the doctor without knowin' what's going on removes a lung. That's a problem. The medical staff have got to get their diagnoses right before they enter someone with surgery. Boylan is this regime's Mengele and will say anything to push for abortion. Three medical reports confirmed that it had nothing to with abortion. Savita was misdiagnosed. And one sees this oneself if one looks at the particulars of it.

Even so, if the doctor on site has a clear idea that withdrawing the child is needed to save the mother; then it is done. The 8th affirms this with its use of term "practical", the medical guidelines say this is so. This is so even if a viable child dies, Savita's baby was dying already. What to do is all very clear if the medical practitioners are trained properly and fellow the 8th to the letter.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Legend
Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
23,653
Likes
19,241
Points
313
#31
It's common-sense in the realm of anyone to deduce if they just think it through. You don't perform aggressive surgery on someone without knowing what's wrong with that patient. Someone is hacking with a throat condition but the doctor without knowin' what's going on removes a lung. That's a problem. The medical staff have got to get their diagnoses right before they enter someone with surgery. Boylan is this regime's Mengele and will say anything to push for abortion. Three medical reports confirmed that it had nothing to with abortion. Savita was misdiagnosed. And one sees this oneself if one looks at the particulars of it.

Even so, if the doctor on site has a clear idea that withdrawing the child is needed to save the mother; then it is done. The 8th affirms this with its use of term "practical", the medical guidelines say this is so. This is so even if a viable child dies, Savita's baby was dying already. What to do is all very clear if the medical practitioners are trained properly and fellow the 8th to the letter.
As I said before, I'm convinced that Abortionist doctors in Ireland have been doing their best to make the 8th untenable for a long time by enforcing an erroneous interpretation. What needed to happen here was not an attack on the 8th, but of the Dept. of Health to issue clear guild lines to doctors.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
4,314
Likes
6,473
Points
263
Location
The land of the golden potato
#32
As I said before, I'm convinced that Abortionist doctors in Ireland have been doing their best to make the 8th untenable for a long time by enforcing an erroneous interpretation. What needed to happen here was not an attack on the 8th, but of the Dept. of Health to issue clear guild lines to doctors.
The medical guidelines do the job of providing clarity. Medical personnel blaming their errors on the 8th is a very intuitive thing to do to avoid blame being put on their own shoulders. 'Better some "evil" law getting the rap than me.' I know of several examples of doctors very quickly referring mothers to England over some health issue with that child only for it to emerge the child either only had a minor health issue or that diagnosis was overthrown completely. Whilst there are good doctors and stuff, the pestilence of careerism has invaded Irish medicine like a virus.
 

GodsDog

Member
Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
1,140
Likes
1,201
Points
163
Location
Gombeenia
#33
I stopped at "Boylan is the regime's Mengele"

and declared victory for the pro choice movement
By Godwin's law :p

Sorry folks but I can no longer suspend disbelief and take people seriously when they reject
professional medical testimony in favour of their own armchair musings
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
4,314
Likes
6,473
Points
263
Location
The land of the golden potato
#34
I stopped at "Boylan is the regime's Mengele"

and declared victory for the pro choice movement
By Godwin's law :p

Sorry folks but I can no longer suspend disbelief and take people seriously when they reject
professional medical testimony in favour of their own armchair musings
Nope. You defering to some FG flunkie and planting your head into the ground ostrich-style doesn't "win" abortion activists the banana, sorry.

Tadhg cited one example of Boylan's wifull ignorance on the subject matter. He's a notorious regime flunky, a defacto abortion lobbyist and will say anything to push for abortion. .
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
4,314
Likes
6,473
Points
263
Location
The land of the golden potato
#35
Here's a letter from 2013 from a slate of medical professionals challenging Boylan on his views.

==========================================
TOP CONSULTANTS CHALLENGE PETER BOYLAN ON SAVITA INQUEST COMMENTS
MAY. 9, 2013

11 top consultants have written to the papers to challenge Dr Peter Boylan's comments after the inquest into the death of Savita Halappanavar.

They wrote:

Sir, – The recent inquest on Savita Halappanavar has raised important issues about hospital infection in obstetrics. Much of the public attention appears to have been directed at the expert opinion of Dr Peter Boylan who suggested that Irish law prevented necessary treatment to save Ms Halappanavar’s life. We would suggest that this is a personal view, not an expert one.

Furthermore, it is impossible for Dr Boylan, or for any doctor, to predict with certainty the clinical course and outcome in the case of Savita Halappanavar where sepsis arose from the virulent and multi drug-resistant organism, E.coli ESBL.

What we can say with certainty is that where ruptured membranes are accompanied by any clinical or bio-chemical marker of infection, Irish obstetricians understand they can intervene with early delivery of the baby if necessary. Unfortunately, the inquest shows that in Galway University Hospital the diagnosis of chorioamnionitis was delayed and relevant information was not noted and acted upon.

The facts as produced at the inquest show this tragic case to be primarily about the management of sepsis, and Dr Boylan’s opinion on the effect of Irish law did not appear to be shared by the coroner, or the jury, of the inquest.

Obstetric sepsis is unfortunately on the increase and is now the leading cause of maternal death reported in the UK Confidential Enquiry into Maternal Deaths. Additionally there are many well-documented fatalities from sepsis in women following termination of pregnancy. To concentrate on the legal position regarding abortion in the light of such a case as that in Galway does not assist our services to pregnant women.

It is clear that maternal mortality in developed countries is rising, in the US, Canada, Britain, Denmark, Netherlands and other European countries. The last Confidential Enquiry in Britain (which now includes Ireland) recommended a “return to basics” and stated that many maternal deaths are related to failure to observe simple clinical signs such as fever, headache and changes in pulse rate and blood pressure. Many of the failings highlighted in Galway have been described before in these and other reports.

The additional problem of multi-resistant organisms causing infection, largely as a result of antibiotic use and abuse, is a serious cause of concern and may lead to higher death rates in all areas of medicine.

Ireland’s maternal health record is one of the best in the world in terms of our low rate of maternal death (including Galway hospital). The case in Galway was one of the worst cases of sepsis ever experienced in that hospital, and the diagnosis of ESBL septicaemia was almost unprecedented among Irish maternity units.

It is important that all obstetrical units in Ireland reflect on the findings of the events in Galway and learn how to improve care for pregnant women. To reduce it to a polemical argument about abortion may lead to more – not fewer – deaths in the future. – Yours, etc,

Dr JOHN MONAGHAN, DCH FRCPI FRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, Portiuncula, Galway;
Dr CYRIL THORNTON, MB BCh MRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, Cork Clinic;
Dr EAMON Mc GUINNESS, MB BCh MRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, Mount Carmel Hospital, Dublin;
Dr TREVOR HAYES, MB BCh FRCS MRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, St Luke’s General Hospital, Kilkenny;
Dr CHRIS KING, MB DCH MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/ Gynaecologist, Letterkenny General Hospital;
Dr EILEEN REILLY, MB ChB MRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician/ Gynaecologist, Galway Clinic;
Prof JOHN BONNAR, MD FRCPI FRCOG, Prof Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Trinity College Dublin;
Prof EAMON O’DWYER, MB MAO LLB FRCPI FRCOG, Prof Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology, NUI Galway;
Prof STEPHEN CUSACK, MB BCh FRCSI, Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Cork University Hospital;
Dr RORY PAGE, MB BCh FFA RCSI, Consultant Anaesthetist, Cavan General Hospital;
Dr JAMES CLAIR, MB BCh PhD FRCPath, Consultant Microbiologist, Mercy University Hospital,
Cork.

Archived News | Youth Defence
 

GodsDog

Member
Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
1,140
Likes
1,201
Points
163
Location
Gombeenia
#36
Here's a letter from 2013 from a slate of medical professionals challenging Boylan on his views.

==========================================
TOP CONSULTANTS CHALLENGE PETER BOYLAN ON SAVITA INQUEST COMMENTS
MAY. 9, 2013

11 top consultants have written to the papers to challenge Dr Peter Boylan's comments after the inquest into the death of Savita Halappanavar.

They wrote:

Sir, – The recent inquest on Savita Halappanavar has raised important issues about hospital infection in obstetrics. Much of the public attention appears to have been directed at the expert opinion of Dr Peter Boylan who suggested that Irish law prevented necessary treatment to save Ms Halappanavar’s life. We would suggest that this is a personal view, not an expert one.

Furthermore, it is impossible for Dr Boylan, or for any doctor, to predict with certainty the clinical course and outcome in the case of Savita Halappanavar where sepsis arose from the virulent and multi drug-resistant organism, E.coli ESBL.

What we can say with certainty is that where ruptured membranes are accompanied by any clinical or bio-chemical marker of infection, Irish obstetricians understand they can intervene with early delivery of the baby if necessary. Unfortunately, the inquest shows that in Galway University Hospital the diagnosis of chorioamnionitis was delayed and relevant information was not noted and acted upon.

The facts as produced at the inquest show this tragic case to be primarily about the management of sepsis, and Dr Boylan’s opinion on the effect of Irish law did not appear to be shared by the coroner, or the jury, of the inquest.

Obstetric sepsis is unfortunately on the increase and is now the leading cause of maternal death reported in the UK Confidential Enquiry into Maternal Deaths. Additionally there are many well-documented fatalities from sepsis in women following termination of pregnancy. To concentrate on the legal position regarding abortion in the light of such a case as that in Galway does not assist our services to pregnant women.

It is clear that maternal mortality in developed countries is rising, in the US, Canada, Britain, Denmark, Netherlands and other European countries. The last Confidential Enquiry in Britain (which now includes Ireland) recommended a “return to basics” and stated that many maternal deaths are related to failure to observe simple clinical signs such as fever, headache and changes in pulse rate and blood pressure. Many of the failings highlighted in Galway have been described before in these and other reports.

The additional problem of multi-resistant organisms causing infection, largely as a result of antibiotic use and abuse, is a serious cause of concern and may lead to higher death rates in all areas of medicine.

Ireland’s maternal health record is one of the best in the world in terms of our low rate of maternal death (including Galway hospital). The case in Galway was one of the worst cases of sepsis ever experienced in that hospital, and the diagnosis of ESBL septicaemia was almost unprecedented among Irish maternity units.

It is important that all obstetrical units in Ireland reflect on the findings of the events in Galway and learn how to improve care for pregnant women. To reduce it to a polemical argument about abortion may lead to more – not fewer – deaths in the future. – Yours, etc,

Dr JOHN MONAGHAN, DCH FRCPI FRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, Portiuncula, Galway;
Dr CYRIL THORNTON, MB BCh MRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, Cork Clinic;
Dr EAMON Mc GUINNESS, MB BCh MRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, Mount Carmel Hospital, Dublin;
Dr TREVOR HAYES, MB BCh FRCS MRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician/Gynaecologist, St Luke’s General Hospital, Kilkenny;
Dr CHRIS KING, MB DCH MRCOG Consultant Obstetrician/ Gynaecologist, Letterkenny General Hospital;
Dr EILEEN REILLY, MB ChB MRCOG, Consultant Obstetrician/ Gynaecologist, Galway Clinic;
Prof JOHN BONNAR, MD FRCPI FRCOG, Prof Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Trinity College Dublin;
Prof EAMON O’DWYER, MB MAO LLB FRCPI FRCOG, Prof Emeritus Obstetrics & Gynaecology, NUI Galway;
Prof STEPHEN CUSACK, MB BCh FRCSI, Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Cork University Hospital;
Dr RORY PAGE, MB BCh FFA RCSI, Consultant Anaesthetist, Cavan General Hospital;
Dr JAMES CLAIR, MB BCh PhD FRCPath, Consultant Microbiologist, Mercy University Hospital,
Cork.

Archived News | Youth Defence
Well at least you posted something other than your own musings this time so we're making progress!
Be careful who you are getting into bed with though. Youth Defence?

The pertinent question is whether the fact that there was a heartbeat in the foetus delayed
doctors from acting promptly on Savita's reasonable request for termination and whether
an early termination would have increased Savita's chances of survival.


Boylan says yes it would have

The part I highlighted in bold would seem to indicate that the people signing this letter would also agree with that assessment
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Legend
Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
23,653
Likes
19,241
Points
313
#37
Well at least you posted something other than your own musings this time so we're making progress!
Be careful who you are getting into bed with though. Youth Defence?

The pertinent question is whether the fact that there was a heartbeat in the foetus delayed
doctors from acting promptly on Savita's reasonable request for termination and whether
an early termination would have increased Savita's chances of survival.


Boylan says yes it would have

The part I highlighted in bold would seem to indicate that the people signing this letter would also agree with that assessment

What they're saying is that the hospital failed to diagnose the the E Coli infection. If they had of, then "What we can say with certainty is that where ruptured membranes are accompanied by any clinical or bio-chemical marker of infection, Irish obstetricians understand they can intervene with early delivery of the baby if necessary."

The error was in failing to diagnose her infected blood. An abortion would not have cured that infection. She still would have died. Savita's case has absolutely nothing to do with the 8th amendment.
 
Joined
Dec 15, 2017
Messages
590
Likes
593
Points
93
Location
mothers gaff
#38
I stopped at "Boylan is the regime's Mengele"

and declared victory for the pro choice movement
By Godwin's law :p

Sorry folks but I can no longer suspend disbelief and take people seriously when they reject
professional medical testimony in favour of their own armchair musings
professional medical testimony. is that right godsdog. its sad that ur exactly the type of citizen our corporate overlords want - someone who believes the corporate trained corporate educated corporate paid doctors and scientists of the corporate oligarchs. are u aware that some of the 'scientists' involved in the roe vs wade case in america came clear years later and owned up to falsifying information for the pro abortion lobby. are u aware that the 'roe' in question also came clean years later and told how she was forced by her feminist lawyers to lie about being raped!!!! as for quoting godwins law, that law doesnt really hold any water anymore as we all know about the workcamps. as for armchair musings, u are the mother of all armchair musers, but do u know what, the likes of me were defending u in ur mothers womb, so u can be or not be what u want, werent u the lucky little embryo, foetus, undifferentiated cluster of cells or whatever u want to call the CHILD in the womb. and who the fuck are you to advise anyone to be careful who to get into bed with (re youth defence). id say ud get up on a cracked plate urself. and not even satisfy the plate u spermless maggot.
 
Joined
Mar 17, 2016
Messages
4,314
Likes
6,473
Points
263
Location
The land of the golden potato
#39
Well at least you posted something other than your own musings this time so we're making progress!
Be careful who you are getting into bed with though. Youth Defence?
Youth Defence is one of the few, most courageous, authentic human rights advocates in this country. But because they are vigorously anti-establishment and they aren't part of the golden circle of regime NGOs, they get abuse from the entire media monopoly. It's unfortunate people buy into that abuse.
The pertinent question is whether the fact that there was a heartbeat in the foetus delayed
doctors from acting promptly on Savita's reasonable request for termination and whether
an early termination would have increased Savita's chances of survival.



Boylan says yes it would have
The part I highlighted in bold would seem to indicate that the people signing this letter would also agree with that assessment
The pertinent point in respect to the abortion issue is that there's nothing in the 8th amendment that prevents an early withdrawal of that child if in the view of the medical practitioners that is required to save the mother. It's wrong to describe Boylan as a Mengele as I did above. Mengele was an outlier. Boylan's role is more of a Brandt. A surgeon meshed within the hierarchy of the regime but one that muddles "do no harm" with the regime ideology of the day; in contemporary terms New Left snowflakism.
 
Last edited: