This is assuming, of course, that her death was caused by complications due to pregnancy and not by any other factor.
Septicemia is a systemic infection, iirc. Whether that was brought about by a dead baby in the womb, or whether the miscarriage was a result of the infection, I don't know. There is more to this than simply a case of 'an abortion would have saved her life' as some might have us believe.
As usual it’s the immigrants causing problems. Doesn’t sound like their name is exactly a traditional Irish name. They didn’t even bother adding an “O” to it.
While it is tragic that this young woman died, changing the law will guarantee only two things, 1) every baby aborted will die, 2) some woman getting abortions will die.
Abortions like any medical procedure carry a risk of the patient dying. More abortions means more women will die.
The law allowed an abortion if the mother’s life is at risk. A choice was made by someone not to do the abortion. The fault is not with the law but those that made the decision.
As others have pointed out we do not know the full story nor do we know if this woman would have died even if an abortion was performed.
When the history of the world is written sometime in the future, this last hundred years will be known as the time when the world went mad.
One of the prime function of any society is to preserve itself and to survive. Killing your unborn baby is the same as killing your future society.
The pro-death crowd puts stories like this on the front page and holds them up as examples of why abortion should be legal.
You never hear the opposite stories - the stories of the mother who dies as a result of an abortion. Those stories just vanish, like the dead mothers.
This is indeed medical negligence & has nothing to do with abortion. Terminating this pregnancy probably would’ve increased her risk of sepsis. What a joke. I see the Irish media is no different than that if the US....leftist spin & full of crap
Savita Halappanavar is a weird name for an irish person
This doesn’t make sense, if she “started miscarrying” then she would indeed have miscarried. This story is devoid of useful facts. Whatever the problem with her pregnancy it seems they did not properly diagnose and treat it. The lack of facts make it impossible to make an informed thought and it’s all just conjecture.
Woman dies whom pro-aborts claim would have been helped by an abortion ... massive protest; giant headlines.
Woman killed by abortion ... crickets. Amazing.
Too bad they can’t muster any sympathy for the babies.
Another news report, with the liberal newspaper’s
editorial comment at the end:
Indian woman refused abortion in Ireland, dies
TNN
The Times of India
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Bangalore/Belgaum/London: A 31-year-old Indian dentist died recently in Ireland from complications following the hospital’s refusal to conduct an abortion to save her life. Her death has triggered calls for a review of the Catholic nation’s near complete ban on termination of pregnancy, even on medical grounds.
Karnataka-born Savita Halappanavar died on October 28, three days after she was admitted to the university hospital, Galaway, for treatment of a messy 17-week pregnancy that had left her in agony. But the doctors repeatedly rejected her pleas for an abortion, citing Ireland’s orthodox ban, leading to a worsening of her condition even when it was clear that the baby could not be saved. Savita died of septicemia.
According to British newspapers, an Irish deputy, Patrick Nulty, said Halappanavar’s death points at the “pressing and urgent need” for parliament to “show responsibility and legislate” , calling on his party to press for reforming the abortion law.
I am neither catholic nor Irish, she said before dying
The newspapers also said that the Halappanavar’s family is considering legal action , arguing that the fetus should have been removed earlier to save the woman’s life.
Irish authorities have launched a probe into her death. Her husband, Praveen, an engineer at Boston Scientific in Galway, is flying back to Ireland. Within hours of Savita’s hospitalization on October 21, doctors determined that she was miscarrying, Praveen said. Over the next three days, they refused requests for a termination of her fetus to ease her surging pain and fading health. The dead fetus was later removed and Savita was taken to the high dependency unit and then to the intensive care unit, where she died of septicemia on October 28.
“Savita was really in agony . She was very upset, but she accepted she was losing the baby ,” he told the Irish paper in a telephone interview from Belgaum . “When the consultant came on the ward rounds on Monday morning, Savita said if they could not save the baby, could they induce an end to the pregnancy. The consultant said: ‘As long as there is a fetal heartbeat, we can’t do anything’.” “Again on Tuesday morning..., the consultant said it was the law, that this is a Catholic country. Savita said: ‘I am neither Irish nor Catholic’ , but they said there was nothing they could do,” Praveen was quoted as saying. He said his wife vomited repeatedly and collapsed in a restroom that night, but doctors wouldn’t terminate the fetus because its heart was still beating.
The fetus died the following day and its remains were surgically removed. Within hours, Praveen said, his wife was placed under sedation in intensive care with systemic blood poisoning and he was never able to speak with her again. By Saturday, her heart, kidneys and liver had stopped working and she was pronounced dead early on October 28.
Praveen told TOI he is getting frequent updates from his friends in Ireland. “The PM has given an assurance to get the matter investigated by an independent agency.’’
Times View
The debate in the Western world on abortion is often portrayed as one between the ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’ camps. As this case should illustrate to those who view an anti-abortion position as pro-life, that can often be a dangerously misplaced notion. In this specific case, it appears clear that the yet-to-be-born child’s life was doomed whether or not an abortion had taken place. The mother’s life, on the other hand, could have been saved had the abortion been done. The ban on abortion therefore ended up taking a life that need not have been lost. How does that square with viewing the ban as pro-life?
488 comments