Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
As I understand, the patient was in hospital for 3 days (at least, I'm not sure of the actual timescale as reports have varied) with a dying foetus and with her waters broken.

Once the waters break, the chance of infection apparently skyrocket. At that point, the responsible medical response to preserve the life of the mother would have been abortion. To do nothing was to play russian roulette with her life. And, thanks to the hospital's gambling, Savita lost.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Wed Nov 21st, 2012 at 08:31:09 AM EST
It apparently depends on the timeline. An abortion after infection has set in would do nothing for her and might increase the risk. An abortion before any indications of infection could have reduced the risk - and, I agree with you, I think that is most likely what happened here because I don't see any reports of her presenting with a high temperature, for instance, on admission.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Wed Nov 21st, 2012 at 08:39:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There are many different methods of abortion, and I would be surprised if all of them would have increased her risk.

It seems undisputed that the hospital didn't cite medical reasons when they refused the abortion. They didn't say it would have increased her risk or something. They cited ideological/legal reasons. The Catholic country stuff.

Obviously the staff thought their risk of being prosecuted (or of having to answer nasty questions) was higher if they carried out an abortion. It is important to make sure that this is shifted, and that the staff becomes aware that refusing an abortion is an equally (at least) high risk, if there aren't compelling reasons for this refusal, which should be documented.

by Katrin on Wed Nov 21st, 2012 at 09:00:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series