Boylan is well known to be hopelessly biased on the Abortion issue. You might as well ask a NRA member about a reasonable comment in favour of changing the Gun laws.
Fact is he was asked under oath if SH would be alive if it wasnt for the 8th and the best he could give was ‘possibly’.
11 senior gyne’s subesuently issued a statement stating his ‘opinion’ was an opinion and not based on medical fact.
What is hopelessly biased? Does it mean holding a view that you don’t agree with?
Our staff are also commission, the more abortions they sell the more they get Paid. We dont really give a Fk about Women
It means that he cant be relied on to give an opinion that doesn’t fit his agenda which is abortion on-demand.
He was at it again on Friday night, claimed that Canada had a low A rate. Any monkey can perform a google search and quickly find out that it has anything but!
And claims of selling abortions on commission isn’t peddling an agenda? The more I read some of the warped thinking here it reinforces how right I am to have decided to vote YES. The more zealoted no’s are the biggest help the YES campaign can get.
Have you considered the possibility that his views are shaped by his experience in the field? 75% of Obstetricians in this country favour repeal. That’s well above the level of support in the general population. In other words, support for the introduction of abortion here is highest among the group of people who know most about this and deal with it most.
Your argument that their motivation is financial is patently logically flawed. In fact the complete opposite is the case. A pregnant woman will on average visit an Obstetrician 12 times during her pregnancy, as well as requiring significant attention around the birth itself. Let’s say the eight is repealed and abortion introduced. Given that around 3,500 Irish women are currently having abortions each year, let’s say for sake of argument that number increases to 5,500 with the less restricted access. As those 2,000 women who previously would have had their babies would now only need one check-up visit to the obstetrician post-abortion (and potentially one visit for a scan to confirm the pregnancy pre-abortion), that would translate to approximately 20,000 less obstetrician appointments per annum - meaning significantly less work for them. Approximately 80-85% of abortions will be carried out in the form of induced miscarriages in the surgeries of GP’s. So the number of fetuses surgically aborted by obstetricians here would be around 1,000 per year. On those numbers, they’d literally be robbing themselves of 19,000 appointments per year plus the time they currently spend on the 2,000 births. Also, given that a surgical abortion typically takes about 15 minutes to perform, no dedicated clinic could be economically viable performing an average of just four abortions a day, so I can’t see us ever having them here.
This ‘warped thinking’ as you describe it was reported on mainstream pal
I suspect this is what was going on when a staff member tried to give a woman with learning disabilities a termination even though she did not understand what was going on.
I was clearly referring to the abortion providers.
Didn’t say you - but keep them coming …
It’ll be the Obstetricians/Gynecologists performing the abortions. For the reasons I’ve outlined above, none will only be doing abortions due to lack of volume, they’ll be carrying them out in the course of their normal work.
They’ll be doing the post 12 week abortions. Are GPs responsible for the pre 12 weeks through a pill?
Will repealing the 8th allow for abortions post 12 weeks? I thought it was only for up to 12 weeks. Forgive my laziness on reading up on it again myself.
Edit: I left out the key word “unrestricted” when talking about 12 weeks
Not unrestricted at all. In cases where the mothers health is in danger or FFA issues. I’m fairly sure but stand to be corrected that disability in the baby is not considered as reason enough
When you say not unrestricted, if the 8th is repealed, we will remove the equal right to life of the unborn. That’s what we are being asked and what will replace that will be at the governments descretion not put to the will of the people. So by repealing the 8th we are removing any barrier to the will of the politicians. Regardless of your position on repeal, you don’t have to look back further than the last 24hrs to see how wrong that would be.
Sorry, was summarizing there and made that confusing.Should really have clarified I meant surgical abortions in that instance.
The proposed mechanism is that the first point of contact will be the GP. There the woman will be given advice and have a 72-hour period to consider all her options. If she decides to go ahead with the abortion, then under normal circumstances if she’s up to 9 weeks pregnant a miscarriage will be induced by a pill/pills in the GP’s surgery, as this method is deemed the most effective at that stage. In European countries where this is available, approx 80-85% of abortions are carried out this way, hence the estimate that we’ll have similar figures here. The remaining 15-20% of abortions either deemed medically unsuitable for this method, in the 9-12 week window or beyond that and meeting the strict criteria for post-12 week abortions, will be performed surgically by Obstetricians/Gynecologists. If we assume there’ll be 5,000-5,500 abortions a year here (which is where I expect we’ll end up), approx 4,000 will be carried out by GP’s, each one performing on average two a year (even allowing for those who won’t perform them on conscientious grounds). That’ll mean about four extra consultations for the GP, which illustrates just how ludicrous the ‘pro-life’ claims they’ll be swamped and won’t be able to cope with the extra demand are. Individual GP’s here generally refer patients to specific specialists and that will probably apply here too ie they’ll be referred to Obstetricians/Gynecologists already in the Public or Private Health System. There simply won’t be a market of sufficient size for any outside agency.
Total red herring to equate the current cancer diagnosis issue with the repeal debate. Sheesh.
Having gone through a few miscarriages with herself, the process is not something people will opt for willy-nilly (pardon the pun), The idea that you just go home with a pill and that’s that is so wide of the mark it’s not funny. Thoroughly unpleasant and painful few days ensue and sometimes the surgery is required if the medical approach doesn’t take it’s course as expected. The surgical procedure is not something anyone would go through flippantly or lightly, it is also a very uncomfortable process.
The no side are trying to make it seem flippant. Hello divorce goodbye daddy springs to mind as a similar tactic, one which hasn’t come to fruition subsequently
Correct. And bear in mind, we’re currently forcing 3,500 women per year to endure a flight (with the obvious radical changes in blood pressure that can entail) during that period when all best medical practice says they ought to be doing nothing but resting. But remember, those that want to keep the status quo “love both”.