Sir, – This issue isn’t about pro life, or pro choice. This is about good medicine, proper care and laws that are needed to protect doctors and their patients.
We undermined this woman’s decision, her choices and her autonomy; we disrespected her, her baby and her family. Not one week ago, we upheld a referendum on the topic of children’s rights; what sort of sham was that? The front page of The Irish Times (November 14th) is a shameful indictment of Ireland. – Yours, etc,
A chara, – I first learned of the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar over one week ago. It made me both ashamed and angered to be Irish. Ultimately what angered me most was that this was both a preventable and predictable death.
She died because successive governments have neglected to legislate for the 1992 Supreme Court common law ruling, permitting abortion if “real and substantial risk” to the life of the mother is present.
She died because my profession have not been sufficient advocates for women in these situations. She died because reportedly she was told we are a “Catholic country” when we are in fact secular. She died because our nation chooses not to listen to Human Rights Watch, the European Court of Justice, Amnesty International and internationally published research (including my own research published in September 2012, in the European Journal of General Practice, highlighting many cases when mothers with real and substantial risk to their lives were forced to travel abroad for termination of pregnancy).
She died needlessly.
I cannot imagine the pain and suffering experienced by her family. – Is mise,
Sir, – In Attorney General v X, the Supreme Court identified a right of access to abortion in cases where there is a threat to the life of the mother. By failing to introduce legislation clarifying and codifying this ruling, the State has consistently failed to vindicate the rights of women in this regard.
One such woman was Savita Halappanavar. For how much longer will the State postpone legislating for X? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In his report to the 66th session of the United Nations General Assembly in August 2011, Anand Grover, the UN special rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, stated that “criminal laws penalising and restricting induced abortion are the paradigmatic examples of impermissible barriers to the realisation of women’s right to health...such laws consistenty generate poor physical health outcomes, resulting in deaths that could have been prevented”.
Ireland has just learned this fundamental truth in the most tragic of circumstances. Surely, it is now time to end the restriction on women’s right to health and to legislate for safe, appropriate abortion services in Ireland? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – The untimely and horrific death of Savita Halappanavar highlights once more the crass collective hypocrisy of our political class. Regardless of one’s stance towards abortion, there is a startling contrast in attitudes towards legislating for different constitutionally-mandated concepts.
Your readers will recall the hand-wringing in 2009 of justice minister Dermot Ahern, who insisted that, although it was the last thing he wanted to do, he had no option but to legislate for blasphemy, as court judgments on the Constitution demanded it.
The case which demanded legislation on blasphemy was decided by the Supreme Court in 1999. For those without a calculator handy, that is a whole seven years after the X case similarly demanded legislation to clarify the constitutional position on abortion where there is a risk to life of the mother. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – In publishing the photograph of the unfortunate woman who died of complications after a miscarriage in a Galway hospital, you stooped to the lowest point in journalism. It would appear that in your campaign for the introduction of abortion into Ireland there is no level below which you will not descend.
What about the feelings of the woman’s husband and relatives? With your new look and attitude you are fast becoming part of the gutter tabloid press.
The old editors and board members must be turning in their graves. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Was it for this? – Yours, etc,
Sir, – Reading the fate of Savita Halappanavar is very upsetting (Home News, November 14th). Her husband’s account of the prolonged agony she suffered is shocking, and all the more so because it should not have happened. I am not surprised that the medical intervention required and requested by Ms Halappanavar did not materialise. Successive governments’ failure to legislate for the constitutional amendment determined by the people over 20 years ago, to allow for abortions in circumstances when the life of the mother is at risk, have led us to this appalling tragedy. Why did this happen? And why was her life fatally compromised in such a barbaric fashion? My reasoning self cannot blame the medical staff.
Constitutionally, they failed to offer her what she was entitled to expect; intervention to save her life, because there is no legal framework in which they can operate.
That this is an extremely rare occurrence is no comfort to Ms Halappanavar’s family. It is also no comfort to any woman in this country, the reality for whom is that their gynaecological care will be administered according to a religious ethos rather than best medical practice. The argument that women in this country do get the medical treatment they need is tragically undermined by Ms Halappanavar’s experience. In the week following a very low turnout to yet another constitutional referendum, the Government is wondering why people are not engaged. Maybe, if attention was paid to what the people decide, and legislation delivered, people would have more faith.
I would implore this Government to legislate for the terms under which women can safely have abortions in this country and honour the will of the people and also the memory of Ms Halappanavar, whose death should have been prevented. – Yours, etc,
Sir, – As a nation we should all be collectively ashamed that we let somebody die in one of our hospitals when they could have been saved.
Special shame should be reserved for those who campaign against abortion in all circumstances and most especially the Catholic Church whose oppressive teachings had, indirectly, some hand in the death of an innocent woman needlessly. – Yours, etc,