American case echoes Savita story as Bishop strips hospital of Catholic affiliation

Jacer your request is ridicolous. You cannot prove the existence of a superior being you rely on the writings of mere mortals. If proof of the existence of God was available no one would doubt it. Ypu prove to me that a divine being exists and I will attend mass tomorrow. It is because no proof is available that people choose not to believe. You talk below of proof of God but fail to give it.You overplay your part in the discussion by stating "I know of them" are you now playing God by seeing into my mine "Ni feider leath".

Oh yes, BigDaddy (that name sounds like what a bully would call themselves... eh?) we believers can offer hundreds if not thousands of proofs from centuries gone by and not a few present-day proofs to counter Seano’s “myth” claim and your claims, none of them based on what you call faith. They are physical proofs confirmed by scientists. Seano actually knows of them but refuses to accept them, as is his free choice – a sad, unfulfilling choice imo. To borrow President Obama’s words spoken in our own native Irish language “Sea, is féidir linn” (“Yes, we can”). Neither you nor Seano has risen to my challenge for you two to offer proof of Seano’s assertion. Ní féidir libh (You can’t).

Most holy Bishop: Would Christ even recognize the inhuman business that you have made of his Church?

We who belief can offer a myriad of reasons why your statement is incorrect.... @jacers No, you cannot! You who "belief" can offer no proof of your claim since it is not reason or empirical evidence that you rely upon; it is faith. If you believe that there is an elephant god, a carpenter god or a monkey god, all that can really be said is that what you believe in has emerged from the mind of another or yourself. Is it your contention that you have SEEN any of these "gods"? If you had claimed to have seen a god, you would institutionalized. Surely if you told the police that you were told by a bush to do certain things that seemed odd to the police, your explanation would not be greeted with any degree of acceptance unless the police had been indoctrinated as you had been indoctrinated. If someone saw you with a knife, getting ready to plunge the blade into the chest of your son, is it your contention that they would accept your explanation that "your god, (one only you can see, hear or talk to)told you to sacrifice your son's life but later reconsidered and decided that such a sacrifice to be ill-advised? Aren't you turning things on their head by asking for proof that your delusions are false; isn't the burden of proof yours to bear?

Sometimes, I get exasperated reading eiriamach’s comments, even when they have a modicum of truth, because she continues to twist things around, avoiding facts of various matters staring her in the face. I have refrained from commenting under this article’s topic relating to Savita’s tragic death or related examples, like I said I would until the results of the Savita inquiry is published… but Gearoid4 correctly sticks to facts and says all I would have otherwise said. Thank you, Gearoid4… I’m out on the Savita case or anything like it until the "Savita jury" returns its deliberations.

Seano, I'd like you to offer proof that a myriad of religions "are based on myth and have no substance and they all have on thing in common MIND control". We who belief can offer a myriad of reasons why your statement is incorrect. Please, provide the proof that your assertion is correct. Please??...

Well Gearoid!! you are entitled to your beliefs, but that does not make them right.Hindus believe their beliefs (which are thousands of years older than Christianity and so on)also believe they are the righteous ones and then there's a myriad of other religions. They all have one thing in common they are all (incuding Christianity) are based on myth and have no substance and they all have on thing in common MIND control.

@Eiriamach, We cannot speculate about a medical report that has not been published and the law as it stands in Ireland is more than sufficient to save the life of a mother or her child if so required. There is no justification in liberalizing the present law so far abortion is extended or made easier. People who are looking for this are usually ideologically-driven in terms of motivation and usually use such cases as a means of getting abortion-on-demand. This should not be allowed to happen in Ireland or elsewhere. We simply do not know if an abortion would have saved Savita or not, due to the complications that she already had i.e septicemia and the E. coli ESBL. The child was not a direct cause of these life-threatening conditions and anything else is speculation. In the Phoenix case, the Bishop was fully entitled to see the direct killing of a fetus in the womb as breaking a sacrosanct right-to-life code and this case like others generates more imponderables with more questions than answers. These are indeed very difficult situations where quick thinking and reactions are required but again one should not target the fetus or embryo as if he or she were an alien species that needs to be exterminated. In relation to your answer to my question on the rights of the fetus in the Irish constitution, indeed the mother should display her maternal instincts to protect the fetus, as this seems more in line with a flourishing feminist ecology, than one which requires the fetus or embryo as surplus to requirements and subordinate to th one's selfish needs.

Gearoid, The report due to be published Tuesday in Ireland but mentioned by Reuters today calls for clarification of conditions under which a woman with a crisis pregnancy may lawfully have medical assistance in aborting. Apparently enough is known about the Halappanavar case to warrant some life-saving liberalization of Ireland's anti-abortion stance. Whether or not the inquiry in that case finds that the delay in abortion caused or contributed to her death, such a delay is not standard procedure in cases of miscarriage, and it has been clear all along that the medical staff did not quickly enough do everything they could have done to prevent her death. Because Irish law does not "criminalize" their inaction, no one can call the doctors criminals, and I have not. As for the Phoenix case, you say "there would have been no problem" if doctors had treated her escalating blood pressure and not aborted the fetus. Who's second-guessing cause/effect now? The experts in that case concluded that the women would have died without an abortion. While it's possible that an abortion might not have saved Savita, nothing could have saved her fetus, which her body was trying unsuccessfully to abort. Pregnancy, including miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) drains the body's resources for fighting infection and stabilizing other problems. In these two cases, abortion was warranted in the efforts to save the women's lives, and Christian ethics calls for us to save the lives we can save and forbids us to allow needless death. You ask, "Is the fetus which does not have a voice to speak for him/her in relation to the protection of their rights, deserving of any protection under the constitution?" Women protect the fetuses developing in their wombs. How inhumane that when women take on that responsibility, the law abandons protection of their right to life!

@Eiriamach, The case is question has not reached the inquiry stage, and yet we have know-alls criminalizing the medical staff at the Galway hospital for not saving the young woman's life through an abortion, even they were very far removed from the situation itself. In fact the latest medical reports speak of the E. coli ESBL(an antibiotic-resistant strain of the bacterium) and blood poisoning being the cause of death of this young woman. It is hard to seen how aborting the fetus would have stopped this potentially fatal bacterium from spreading through her system. It seems that the death of the fetus would've been the only desired solution to suit the ends that they are striving for So you think that the Irish Constitution's guarantee of equal protection for mother and child is "a death-driven, obstructive and impracticable mandate". Is the fetus which does not have a voice to speak for him/her in relation to the protection of their rights, deserving of any protection under the constitution?. I repeat, there is no bar to medical staff anywhere in Ireland doing all that is practicable to save the life of the mother(which sometimes ends in the undesired death of the fetus/embryo). You castigate Bishop Olmstead in a calumnious fashion by describing him as a "callous sadist" when he was validly enforcing discipline with respect to the gross violation of Christian ethics which took place at the hospital with respect to the direct abortion of a fetus who was not the cause of the mother's condition. If the medical staff concerned concentrated on the saving the life of the mother without intending to destroy the life of the fetus, then there would have been no problem. Again I repeat, if the fetus (without being the target of an abortion)dies during the saving of the mother, it is permissible within the bounds of Catholic medical ethics.

No, Gearoid, the worst I've accused the Irish staff of the Galway hospital of is a failure of moral courage, and I tried to explain why that failure is widely shared and understandable. Yet if Irish medical practitioners were to adopt a clear preference for saving pregnant women's lives in comparable medical emergencies, their actions would have the effect of nullifying or changing the constitution's death-driven, obstructive and impracticable mandate to protect the fetus' and pregnant woman's lives equally. They might be prosecuted for such action, but they would win in the end because reason, compassion, and morality are on that side. Medical practitioners must deal with reality, and the reality is that attempts at equal protection of the two lives lead to loss of both lives when saving one life was possible for them. That's a tragic outcome, a failure, perhaps misogynist but not sadistic. If I were going to use words like "callous sadist," I'd apply the words to Bishop Olmstead, who ordered the Catholic hospital staff to swear never to perform an abortion directly to save a pregnant woman's life but to let both woman and fetus die as 'the will of God.' I imagine divine wrath aimed at Olmstead and disappointment aimed at the Galway physicians.

I think the Bishop Thomas Olmstead is overestimating his self-importance and should be refused medical treatment at all hospitals except Catholic hospitals since he has determined that the previously Catholic hospital is unworthy of treating people who would die otherwise. The appropriate analogy is that one would believe he should refuse treatment from non-Catholic medical personnel and not go to a hospital that does not religiously adhere to his interpretation of the Catholic faith.

@Eiriamach, Without knowing all the facts of the "Savita" case, you are portraying the medical staff who treated the young lady, as callous sadists who deliberately sacrificed her in order that the fetus should live. The medical staff in Ireland are among the best in the world in relation to obstetrics and gynecology and this is why Ireland has the enviable record of having one of the lowest mortality rates for both pregnant women and their babies in the world. I recognize that there are situations where health complications can arise, which Tempranillo has effectively elaborated on to broaden out my original points. Difficult calls have to be made when time if of the essence. But these experiences should not be misused to push for the grave evil of abortion to be widely available when the best medical help is already on hand with no legal bars to doctors doing all they can to save a pregnant woman's life(even if the fetus dies an unintended death during the surgical intervention). @seanomelb The Phoenix case was an example of a situation where an emergency decision had to be made, but there was nothing stopping the medical team from doing everything within their expertise to treat the woman successfully without directly targeting the fetus. The fetus is not a tumour to be excised, but has his/her own dignity as human life in transition. This is not to say that the doctors should have prioritized the life of the child over the mother. If the fetus dies as result of the treatment given to the mother without being the direct target of an abortion, this regrettable outcome is recognized and accommodated within Catholic ethics. I can sleep easy too Seano, the 2000 year old Catholic Faith is still as relevant as it was during the first apostolic age and will survive all man-made ideologies which promised a better earth but ended up being dystopias as the 20th century revealed to our cost.

I am sure that the hospital is not losing any business (or sleep) over this Olmsted's ramblings. Linda Hunt, the hospital president has it right. My guess is that if Olmsted had an emergency life threatening situation he would go to that hospital.

Maybe Gearoid4 would like the return of the good old nurse Cadden days. In this case the doctors prolonged the suffering of a woman knowing the fetus would die. Neither priest or any mythological God have a place to play in the rights of a women. Gearoid I sleep easy with(as you describe)"secular liberal ethos. Your right wing religious beliefs are as old as the dinosaurs. Come to think of it you probably believe they roamed the earth 6,000 years ago. Humanism is the great morality not the writings in some mystical book.