What struck me is the sheer unnecessary waste of it. She might have been better off in a country with horrific maternal mortality rates, a much worse healthcare system, and where most abortions performed are unsafe, just because the laws aren't this stupid. I know people who've had legal abortions in India. A close relative of mine was pretty much the top official on family planning there. The 19th century laws were repealed back in 1971. I'm pretty sure- and so, according to an interview with Savita Halapannavar's husband, is he- that she would have gotten the treatment she repeatedly requested there. The way Mr. Halapannavar put it was, "It has been a terrible few weeks, very hard to understand how this can happen in the 21st century, very hard to explain to her family. If it had happened in the UK or India, the whole thing would have been over in a few hours."
But in a first-world country where it's far safer to give birth, a country with universal healthcare and much greater resources, she was at best made to suffer unnecessarily and at worst killed. And yet politicians are content to pass on the consequences on to Supreme Court, to the ECHR, to the UK, most of all to the women themselves, rather than actually do their jobs and pass a law that reflects what the courts decided, but that might, God forbid, have political consequences for them!
(And honestly, that there was EVER an injunction in the case of a raped suicidal fourteen-year-old....)
About the doctors, I can imagine them thinking her health was endangered but not her life, and finding themselves in a legal gray area, b/c the case law as far as I know doesn't consider a threat to the health of the mother sufficient. And then things turned out worse than they thought. They still bear a lot of responsibility. The only mitigating theory I've seen suggested so far is if the miscarriage was a symptom of the infection that killed her, rather than the infection being acquired during the miscarriage. I guess we'll see when the inquiries are done. But even if it didn't kill her, this still looks like a really bad decision.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2012-11-14 01:44 pm (UTC)But in a first-world country where it's far safer to give birth, a country with universal healthcare and much greater resources, she was at best made to suffer unnecessarily and at worst killed. And yet politicians are content to pass on the consequences on to Supreme Court, to the ECHR, to the UK, most of all to the women themselves, rather than actually do their jobs and pass a law that reflects what the courts decided, but that might, God forbid, have political consequences for them!
(And honestly, that there was EVER an injunction in the case of a raped suicidal fourteen-year-old....)
About the doctors, I can imagine them thinking her health was endangered but not her life, and finding themselves in a legal gray area, b/c the case law as far as I know doesn't consider a threat to the health of the mother sufficient. And then things turned out worse than they thought. They still bear a lot of responsibility. The only mitigating theory I've seen suggested so far is if the miscarriage was a symptom of the infection that killed her, rather than the infection being acquired during the miscarriage. I guess we'll see when the inquiries are done. But even if it didn't kill her, this still looks like a really bad decision.
Will write to the embassy.