On Daily Kos I have commented that an explanation is still possible which does not involve:

There have been allegations of Roman Catholic dogma determining the medical treatments  available to non-Catholics in Irish hospitals; allegations of racism; and allegations of a patriarchal medical system and culture that would rather have a woman suffer in acute pain rather than give her appropriate treatment and relief.

and that the medical team treating Savita may have taken the view that an abortion in this particular case would not reduce her risks of infection or that an abortion carried at least as many risks as benefits.  That raises two issues:

1. Were the medical team correct in their assessment based on the available evidence -  e.g. no evidence of infection at that time, and the very low incidence of septicemia following miscarriage in Ireland? Doctors aren't infallible, mistakes happen,  and even very low risks materialize in a very few cases.  So the question here is a straightforward medical practice one - was she properly diagnosed, monitored and treated based on the available evidence, did the medical team make a good faith mistake, were they negligent in some way, or was this a case of medical malpractice requiring, at the very least, a disciplinary response if not a criminal prosecution. It is just about possible that this is one of the rare occasions where a patient dies even though proper medical protocols were adhered to. Unlikely, but still possible, in my view, depending on what the inquiry finds.

2. But why then was she apparently told she couldn't have an abortion because "this is a Catholic country" and not that the team's medical judgement that an abortion carried as many risks as benefits? It is possible that she WAS told that an abortion carried as many risks as benefits and that the team was therefor not going to carry one out. It is possible that she then she decided that she wanted an abortion anyway, and that she was THEN told that abortion of demand is not possible because "this is a Catholic country".

My point is that we have only heard her husband's allegations, but have heard no testimony for the medical team themselves. We haven't even seen the medical records. So it is to prejudge the issue to make firm assertions at this stage.  The medical team, too, are entitled to a presumption of innocence until the facts are fully investigated. My concern is that a rush to judgement which turns out to be wrong could be damaging to the pro-choice movement. Hell, any rush to judgment in the absence of all the evidence being heard is damaging to the credibility of any community which claims to be reality based and which claims to respect due process.

Some here have accused me here of being a concern troll.  I am most certainly concerned that all the evidence is heard before judgement is made.  I consider the reputation of Daily Kos being at greater risk because of some of the prejudicial, ill-informed and intemperate commentary here.

Index of Frank's Diaries