Periscope


Home Page > Blogs > News blogs > Periscope > Savita’s death is a tragedy - shouting and debating over the loss of beautiful life
Periscope by Niall O'Dowd

Savita’s death is a tragedy - shouting and debating over the loss of beautiful life

Posted on Thursday, November 22, 2012 at 01:50 AM
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail
comment on article 15 Comments
 

RSS


Recent Posts

Archives

submit to reddit

Savita Halappanavar
I was on the Al Jazeera channel on Monday discussing the death of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland.

I was struck by how, in all the shouting and debating, the soul and spirit of the young Indian woman has been lost already.

Savita died in a Galway hospital after doctors refused her request for an abortion on her fetus who they agreed was not going to live. They allegedly told her that because Ireland was a “Catholic country” she would have to wait for the heartbeat to cease.

She spent three days in terrible agony, then contracted septic shock and died.

On the show I was on the usual sides were in opposition -- those who blamed the lack of an abortion on her dying fetus as the reason why she died, and the pro-life gurus claiming that she would have died anyway from septic shock. I was there to give the American reaction.

Few referred to the fact that the death of Savita, the 31-year-old beautiful Indian woman who worked as a dentist in Ireland, is firstly an unbelievable personal tragedy.

Amidst all the recrimination and argument as to how and why she died, it appears to me the human story has been lost.

Al Jazeera played a captivating video of Savita showing off her Indian dance moves. She had the looks of a Bollywood film star and the moves of a natural dancer.

In real life this wonderful and warm Indian professional was an emigrant to Ireland, worked as a dentist in Westport, Co. Mayo and was beloved in her community. Her husband worked in Galway at an American multinational there.

She led the way teaching Indian dance to local Mayo youngsters, and was arranging the events connected with her local Indian festival when she became ill.

In the early weeks of her pregnancy her husband’s family visited, thrilled to bits at the new grandchild. One can only imagine the happy occasion, especially in a culture that adores children.

The parents were hardly back in India, however, when the complications began.

At 17 weeks pregnant, Savita was rushed to Galway Hospital with complications. We all know most of what happened next.

But what stands out in my mind is that when she asked for a termination of a fetus that could not be saved, she was told “no” and that “this is a Catholic country.”

If that is true, what kind of ignorance fueled that type of response? The woman was in excruciating pain and her doctors refused to act.

So this lovely young woman sent three days in absolute agony, a fact not disputed by anyone in this case, while doctors fulfilled some magical religious custom.

And she died and left a heartbroken husband and family behind her. Not only has her husband Praveen lost his wife but also his new baby who no doubt he was thrilled to await.

Hopefully others will not lose sight of the wonderful human life that has been lost.

Savita has now become another statistic that will fuel the incendiary abortion debate. There is no issue I know of more strongly argued and more vehemently than the issue of abortion.

Alas, Savita now becomes part of that ongoing global battle. Her story appeared on Page 3 of The New York Times this week and has sparked worldwide coverage.

But we should never forget her to be a wonderful professional woman, a wife and someone beloved by her family.

That is the real tragedy here.

print this article Print
email this articleE-mail

15 comments

Page 1 of 2 pages
Thomas84 | Nov 29, 2012, 04:40 PM EST
The doctors should follow her.

Report abuse

TobyMaguire | Nov 26, 2012, 01:31 AM EST
Our esteemed editor is so off-base on so many levels that his journalistic integrity and bona fides should be brought into question - along with his agenda. First, he starts by indicating: "They ALLEGEDLY told her that because Ireland was a 'Catholic country'". Later, he indicates: "she was told 'no' and that 'this is a Catholic country.'" Despite, his next words ("If that is true"), the editor reacts as though what was alleged is indeed true (whether it is, or not). Even if so, what's relevant is the the law and guidelines governing the medical procedure, not what the patient's preference was. If the hospital were to bend to the initial request because she wanted to apply her personal belief or own foreign national home custom, then you'd have dual applications of all laws - in this instance, therefore, abort the beating-heart pre-born. "The woman was in excruciating pain and the doctors refused to act." Is that so? They completely abandoned her?! She had NO medical attention?! Please, editor, stop layering us with drivel. And, "So this lovely young woman s(p)ent three days in absolute agony, a fact not disputed by anyone in this case, while doctors fulfilled some magical religious custom." A "MAGICAL religious CUSTOM?" ?!?!?!. Are you showing your antipathy of Catholicism, yet, again, esteemed editor?! And, what of the Inquiry Commission? Can it be bent any more favorable to the uncooperative deceased's husband? (excuse me, but is our editor offended that I not refer to the deceased as "victim" for his agenda ?!) The editor steers the reader - away from salient facts of the matter to a response of emotion. Indeed, a tragedy for the loss of the woman's life. Yet, if there was a big row of a court case to allow the baby's life to be terminated, would he hold a national vigil and get face time with al Jazeera to mourn the unborn life taken?! I say not. Thus, his agenda: to bring about liberalized abortion laws in Ireland.

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 23, 2012, 09:23 PM EST
@ Max Tiger - I think your questions will be exceptionally relevant in the inquiry and in the Coronor's public Court.

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 23, 2012, 08:00 PM EST
(more..) My sister is not alone in the world working with children who have ‘disabilities’ *high fives to all the millions over the world who share in my sister’s work*. But, alone together once over dinner, discussing the abortion issues, she said to me that the children, of themselves, often bring unbridled joy to her life despite her having her own ‘normal’ joyful children. So why should babies, discovered by womb scanning to have “abnormalities or potential disabilities” be put down under abortion on demand as ‘unwanted’ by a woman’s self-caring sole choice, possibly to the detriment of the lives of others who really care? This gets back to eiriamach’s question: whose life is more precious than the other’s in a “let one go and save the other” situation? That is the conundrum that I and many others of Christian faith in Ireland and the rest of the world have great difficulty with, and why it is so difficult to find a way to word legislation for Irish interpretations of abortion/ethical medical terminations of a human life. “It’s just too precious”, as my sister says.

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 23, 2012, 07:45 PM EST
(…more) (Snatches from the Bible and earliest Christian apostles and writers :) “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you…. My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth… You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish…. God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to (mankind) the noble mission of safeguarding life, and (it) must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves… Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.” I'll leave those few for all to think about(…more)

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 23, 2012, 07:41 PM EST
(…more) The Christian Churches – Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Coptic etc share a mandate from Jesus Christ and his Apostles, that human Life is precious and must be protected (by the 5th Commandment of God through Moses and the 2nd Commandment of Christ to love each other as He loved us... i.e. no killing off of any person, even a nascent human life, such as by using contraceptives against the naturally resultant course of conception of a human life after intercourse during a woman’s fertile days, or ‘morning-after pills’ to prevent a life being brought into existence, or by wilful abortion of an unwanted baby. Medicines were available thousands of years ago to kill off foetuses or stop babies being born into our world, just as they are today. Unwanted babies were even killed after birth for selfish reasons. Forgive me if you would please … I rarely quote from the Bible and learned early Christian advisors but I’ll do so now, to show its “Holy Spirit-inspired wisdom” and, more importantly, their ordinary common sense and the need for people to take personal responsibility for their actions when freely engaging in intercourse without wanting to accept its possible consequences. (…more)

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 23, 2012, 07:31 PM EST
Excellent post by eiriamach at 11.47am. That is the conundrum of choice that the Masters (Medical CEOs) of Irish hospitals have spoken about. How equal is equal? A “What if” situation: what if a husband in a bad marriage with a wife that he now hates living with but otherwise happy to enjoy using her body, whose life is in danger in childbirth, secretly wants the wife to die so he can collect the Life Insurance money and keep the baby, and the hospital staff fights for and saves the life of the wife and lets the baby die; what if the husband then sues the hospital under the law of the land (in this imaginary what-if case, the Irish Constitution) for letting his baby die in order to save the wife he hates - a decision that doesn’t go in his private favour? We can postulate other harrowing scenarios (e.g. pregnancy under rape by a relative or stranger) that the Masters of Irish hospitals face daily in fear of being sued, with catastrophic consequences of various kinds for many. Many are clamouring for a definition of “equal” in life-threatening pregnancies or births but - what common sense guidance decides that? The Vatican’s website offers much in-depth consideration in that respect – some of it disputable, I’d even challenge some of it… (More…)

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 23, 2012, 04:04 PM EST
As to Townie’s remarks on Savita’s medical records being denied to the inquiry by Praveen’s Irish lawyers… As far as I know, written and kept medical records of any patient belong to the Hospital and it has every right to make them available to any inquiry, or to none at all unless under Court Order. Lost in all of this inquiry legality stuff of HSE/HIQA/Praveen’s public inquiry demands is the fact that a Coroner’s Court hearing will be held anyway into Savita’s death… and that is most definitively very public in Ireland. Indeed, Praveen’s case for Savita appears to be fast losing majority public support in Ireland, despite what the media’s shouting and debating around the world might have you believe. (After today, I’m not going to comment on Savita’s case again until the inquiry is completed and its findings made public. I think we should all refrain from further speculative comments until then).

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 23, 2012, 03:55 PM EST
(…more) One thing for example, when, as Towngate points out, Praveen said in response to the ‘Catholic country’ comment by a doctor, that Savita said she was Hindu and questioned why she should be subject to 'Catholic country' law while she was a Hindu believer…. Surely everyone knows, as Praveeen and Savita should have known, that when you live in countries other than your own, you are obliged to live by the laws of that country, whether you agree with them or not. Miriam didn’t fire that back at Praveen; she should have IMO. Secondly, so far, we have only Praveen’s word and assertion that that comment was made to him; no reason to disbelieve him but no one has yet confirmed it though I believe some others were present when it was alleged to have been said. It needs to be corroborated. His input into the (as of today's news) HIQA inquiry is essential and he should present himself before its members. A public inquiry is unnecessary and too expensive in these times. The Coroner’s Court should suffice for public inquiry.

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 23, 2012, 03:36 PM EST
I agree with Townie’s suspicions. In fact, there are lots of questions that interviewer Miriam O’Callaghan could have followed up more on what Praveen said, but, unlike her usual uncompromising questioning attitude, she didn’t, in this case. Having watched the interview, I’m sure it was a very hard interview for her, as a mature mother of 8 children, to face a young man who’d lost his wife and unborn child at the first attempt; whether Praveen knew he was being interviewed by a mother of 8 children is another question (she’s been divorced and married at least twice; I’d love to be her next husband though! I think she’s gorgeous!! ... and, erm, for a blonde, well-paid and intelligent enough for my brain). Another RTE interviewer might have been harder-questioning, like many people in Ireland are now asking about this event than the acquiescent Miriam. (More…)

Report abuse

eiriamach | Nov 23, 2012, 11:47 AM EST
Doctors want clear guidelines for applying the court decision on abortion. Can any law detail all the conditions under which they should try to preserve either a fetus' or a pregnant woman's life? No one can foresee all contingencies, so the effort would yield no clarity. But law can provide clarity if it states unequivocally a preference for preserving one or the other life in medical emergencies. A pregnant woman's right to continued life is more compelling than a right to continued life of a fetus whose development depends on a woman's remaining alive. It doesn't make sense to say that a fetus has a 'right to life' other than protecting women's choice to become pregnant and give birth. But if a fetus has a 'right to life' independent of that choice, it's not a 'right' that anti- abortion laws *can* protect. A fetus' life is inseparable from that of the woman in whose uterus it is developing. It's vulnerable to miscarriage, genetic anomalies, accidents, illness or death of the woman, and many more dangers. But a woman of reproductive age does have a life that the law can and should protect, a life that is not dependent on someone else staying alive and healthy. Anti-abortion laws deprive women of that right as soon as they become pregnant whether or not pregnancy ever endangers their lives. It's heavy irony that when a woman chooses to bring new life into the world by becoming pregnant, she instantly loses her own right to life, her most basic human right. At the very least, the law should affirm her right to life, and doing that is incompatible with anti-abortion laws.

Report abuse

Towngate | Nov 22, 2012, 06:38 PM EST
Not to detract from the tragic human event, but this case is rapidly becoming a mystery wrapped up in an enigma...the RTE PrimeTime Special interview with Praveen threw up some interesting points that support my contention that there is indeed 'an agenda' for this tail to wag the Irish dog. He clearly states he loves Ireland and the Irish people - but has no trust in their HSE (Public Health Service). When his wife was told by her doctors, in a Catholic country, they could not abort, he clearly states she told them: "I am not Catholic. I am not Irish. You cannot impose the Law". ~~~ That response in itself, begs a lot of questions! ~~~ Now he is refusing to co-operate with an Enquiry even though the Government has direcrly intervened and removed members he objected to, and is further refusing to meet the newly appointed head of the Enquiry; the UK based Global authority on Trauma Births. Finally, his Lawyer has announced their intention to prevent her Medical Records from being available to the Official Enquiry. ... this is a very tricky one - and I leave it with you ... !

Report abuse

MaxTiger | Nov 22, 2012, 11:41 AM EST
Why is there a presumption that the doctor who said a termination of pregnancy could not take place because Ireland is a 'Catholic country' is a)Irish, b)Catholic and c)pro-life?

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 22, 2012, 03:51 AM EST
Praveen, now back in Ireland, appeared on Irish TV last night in a Prime Time Special, interviewed by our own lovely Miriam O’Callaghan. You can watch the interview: google for RTÉ Player to see it. It was heart-rending listening to Praveen’s dignified responses to Miriam’s questions. He confirmed that a termination was refused while the baby’s heart was still beating which both he and Savita watched on monitors over three days. Savita was distraught to see the beating heart and devastated when it finally stopped. He also confirmed that he was told by a doctor that "this was a Catholic country” but did not elaborate on that or the context in which it was said. Praveen also praised the work and care that the staff at Galway hospital gave to his wife and to him throughout the ordeal, saying they were “just wonderful”. He described the frantic efforts of doctors and nurses around her bed to save Savita as her condition worsened. So, please, let’s remember the tragedy and avoid inconsiderate “herd mentality” talk on abortion, which is not the issue here at all.

Report abuse

jacersagain | Nov 22, 2012, 03:48 AM EST
Wou’knee is out of order using this article and the tragedy of Savita’s death to harp on about the migrant worker issues in Ireland and its effect on Irish culture. That’s an entirely different topic to Niall’s article above. Thanks to Niall for writing on the human tragedy of the case, which, let it be said, is not the first and won’t be the last in Ireland. It must also be said that, even in England and other countries where medical termination (allowed under Irish law) and abortion (not allowed in Ireland) is allowed (they’re two different things in medical circles), pregnant women still die from septicaemia, as did Savita. Let us await the outcome of the inquiry that now will follow before jumping to conclusions.

Report abuse

Page 1 of 2 pages




Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account

or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail