Talk:Death of Savita Halappanavar/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2


Nationality

What nationality was Halappanavar? almost-instinct 21:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Indian. The article says so in the lede. SilverserenC 22:28, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't express myself clearly. I meant: what nationality was she at the end of her life? Anyway, this info has now been made clear, which it wasn't when I wrote this almost-instinct 13:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Catholic Ethos?

I have restored the reference to "Catholic ethos" in the comment by the Minister for Health as follows:

"Dr James Reilly, the Minister for Health, said we "could not pre-judge" the situation and that he was waiting for the results of the investigations, adding he had no evidence to suggest a Catholic ethos at the hospital prevented the pregnant woman's life from being saved by a medical termination."

The rest of the comment is hardly worth quoting by itself as it is banal. When the results of the official enquiry are released the fact that the Minister for Health had no evidence that a Catholic ethos was to blame, will be seen as very relevant indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilbarry1 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The local Fine Gael TD (Member of Parliament) Brian Walsh has also denied that there is a "Catholic ethos" at the hospital as have the medical staff and users of the hospital (see under the article headings "Reaction" and "Political Response"). If the official report confirms that this is the case, will the people screaming insults at the Catholic Church then apologise? Kilbarry1 (talk) 03:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The initial version was a cut and paste copyright violation and we cannot do that. It was removed as I trimmed and re-wrote the content from the source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


Saying that Person X believes the Catholic church to blame is not the same as proof that the Catholic church is to blame, TRPOD. I'll leave the cat on since now the main body includes actual Catholic doctrine, and a statement from the Catholic church on this issue and how it pertains to Catholic doctrine. Benkenobi18 (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Please review what a Wikipedia talk page is for. -- 96.248.226.133 (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of vital information from the lead

Three points have been removed from the lead, (1) that prima facie Halappanavar's death was caused by denial of termination of her pregnancy when it was indicated. (2) That it were Ireland's Catholic laws and ethos that were responsible for the decision that her caregivers took. (3) that ther family was unhappy that Catholic religious laws applied to those like Halappanavar who was a Hindu and not a Catholic. Please reinstate the three back as there are numerous supporting reliable sources for the same. Thanks. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Also Amnesty's communication with Irish authorities. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The lead will not claim prima facie that Halappanavar's death was caused by denial of termination of her pregnancy, nor will it assign the death to the "Catholic ethos" because there are no reliable sources that make such a claim. Doing so would be a violation of WP:V and WP:OR in pursuit of WP:NPOV violation. The fact that the family is unhappy and making such claims is not appropriate for the lead, as it is UNDUE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The family has said repeatedly, as reported by many WP:RS, that the doctors told them they couldn't perform an abortion because this is a Catholic country. While it is impossible to know with certainty that a delay of this kind will cause a death, there are WP:RS who said so, and the family believes so, and there are other WP:RS who say that it contributed to the death. That's what the whole controversy is about. It is WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR to delete those reliably sourced statements from the lead.
This story has now cut out the original charge that Catholic church prohibition of abortion contributed to her death, and has left in the arguments defending the Catholic church policy. That's WP:NPOV
You need WP:CONSENSUS to remove properly-sourced statements, and you don't have it. Yogesh Khandke and I think it should stay in. --Nbauman (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
TRPoD, The lead of the Daily Mail was, "A pregnant woman who begged for an abortion in Ireland has died after doctors refused, telling her: ‘This is a Catholic country.’" [1]
The Daily Mail said, "Mr Halappanavar, an engineer, said he believed his wife, a Hindu, would have survived if she had been given an abortion."
You may not like the Daily Mail, for some reason, but it's a WP:RS. Nobody doubts that the husband said those words. He's been repeating them ever since, and WP:RSs have been quoting him.
For example, CBS News, another WP:RS, had the headline, Husband: Ireland hospital denied Savita Halappanavar life saving abortion because it is a "Catholic country"
So multiple WP:RSs report that the husband said they couldn't perform an abortion because "This is a Catholic country," and that he believes she would have survived if she had an abortion.
Could you explain for the record why you don't think it belongs in the story? --Nbauman (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Headlines from the Daily Mail are the MOST UNreliable of sources. "Mr Halappanavar, an engineer" is not a qualified medical professional. While his opinion may be appropriate to include as his opinion within the article, placing it in the lead is WP:UNDUE validity. ALL of the sources refer to the "its a Catholic country" as being from Mr Halappanavar. Therefore we must report the statement as his claim, as he is as a party intimately invovled in the case and we cannot present it as an unquestioned "fact". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to get into a discussion about whether something is true or not, I only want to find out whether you agree that it is supported by multiple WP:RSs.
Is CBS News a WP:RS? --Nbauman (talk) 20:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Here are 2 more WP:RS that repeat the claim that Savita Halappanavar died because she didn't get an abortion.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/16/ireland-abortion-savita-halappanavar-indian-envoy
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-15/times-view/35134272_1_pro-life-and-pro-choice-camps-abortion-ban
But let's take one thing at a time. I still want to know whether you think CBS News is a WP:RS. --Nbauman (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Headlines are NEVER reliable sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Suppose the headline is not reliable. Is the body of the CBS News story a WP:RS? --Nbauman (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The TOI is an opinion piece, we do not know whose opinion and whether they have any standing to make a difinitive pronouncement, but whoever's opinion it is, the opinion is still couched "it appears clear ..."
The guardian headline (which is never a reliable source anyway) is quoting apparantly the amabassador, who, while he is entitled to his opinion, is no more a reliable source for declaring an unmitigated medical fact about this than joe blow on the street. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
CBS is generally a reliable source, BUT in this instance it appears to be THE ONLY source making the claim that "the government confirmed a miscarrying woman suffering from blood poisoning was refused a quick termination of her pregnancy and died in an Irish hospital." Considering the massive coverage of this event, if the government had indeed made such a proclimation it would be covered elsewhere WP:REDFLAG. And so no, I do not consider that statement in that article to be a reliable source for such a claim.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's another report. Is the BBC a WP:RS?

Woman dies after abortion request 'refused' at Galway hospital, BBC, 14 November 2012

The husband of a pregnant woman who died in an Irish hospital has said he has no doubt she would be alive if she had been allowed an abortion....

When asked by the BBC if he thought his wife would still be alive if the termination had been allowed, Mr Halappanavar said: "Of course, no doubt about it."

He said she continued to experience pain and asked a consultant if she could be induced.

"They said unfortunately she can't because it's a Catholic country," Mr Halappanavar said.

"Savita said to her she is not Catholic, she is Hindu, and why impose the law on her.

"But she said 'I'm sorry, unfortunately it's a Catholic country' and it's the law that they can't abort when the foetus is live."

--Nbauman (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That is still BBC quoting the husband's opinion and statement. Yes, the husband said that. Is he a disinterested medical expert whose opinion on the matter should be considered a valid statement of medical "facts"? no. Should we place his opinions, identifying them as his opinions, in the lead? probably not-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
You seem to be making a lot of decisions about whether the husband has a right to express his opinion, or whether he is authoritative or correct.
For Wikipedia purposes, the only issue is whether his opinion is a significant view.
WP:NPOV says: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."
He doesn't have to be right, he doesn't have to be "qualified" to make the statement, it only has to be a significant view.
His view has been published by multiple WP:RSs. That alone is enough to require its inclusion in the article.
You are free to find other WP:RSs who believe that he is not a disinterested medical expert, or that his opinions are not a valid statement of medical facts, and add them to the article. However, you can't censor his views from the article because of your own personal opinions about them. --Nbauman (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
The notability of the subject of this article "The death of Savita Halappanavar" is that she died because allegedly she was denied the medical attention and treatment her condition demanded and allegedly laws based on Catholic faith overrode medical considerations.. Also that Catholic laws were forced on a Hindu. The article obfuscates the reasons for notability. The lead ought to inform these reasons clearly. Perhaps media coverage isn't neutral in the matter and her death was a matter of statistics. However the job of Wikipedia editors is to mirror reliable sources and not to indulge in original research. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The point Doom is that sources considered as reliable on Wikipedia present a consensus that the subject a Hindu died because of Catholic laws. It may after all be a comspiracy, perhaps bin Laden may be alive, but it is not our scope to judge and conjecture, our work is to mirror a consensus. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I dont know what reliable sources you are reading Yogesh Khandke, but NOT ONE source used in the article nor that I have read makes the claims you are stating as facts. They are stating them as opinions of certain people or groups and Wikipedia WILL NOT present opinions as facts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
(e/c)Mr. Halappanavar certainly has the right to express his views.
However, WE, as an encyclopedia that bases its content on verifiable content that has been published in reliable third party sources and presented in a neutral point of view will NOT be presenting Mr. Halappanavar's claims/beliefs as fact.
Within the body of the article, we can present Mr. Halappanavar's views and beliefs as Mr. Halappanavars views and beliefs, but not giving any implication that they are anything more than his views and beliefs until completed investigations present facts.
In order not to give undue weight and validity to Mr Halappanavar's views and beliefs as anything more than Mr Halappanavar's views and beliefs, any presentation of his views and beliefs in the lead will need to be very very carefully crafted and attributed. That is basic policy. WP:NPOV -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
As a medical incident the points of view that we need to represent are those found in Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Resources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I do not disagree with your arguments, you right, we do not know why she died, but we know why her death has become notable, why people took to the streets, why Prime Ministers commented on it and why this article was written. There are millions of women who die during child birth, we don't write articles on them. We cannot judge people's reactions, we have to write about them. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The reactions of the subject's husband's are very important, if he had quietly taken her body and buried it, we wouldn't be writing this article as her death wouldn't have become news. May be the husband is a fraud and after blood money, may be Malala Yousafzai was shot by the CIA, that isn't for us to judge. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
you are wrong. it is essential for us to continually judge the sources and content to ensure that we are accurately preserving WP:NPOV. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Perhaps I may not be wrong. Well we do need to judge, for wp:RS or wp:UNDUE or wp:FRINGE, that is mechanically, wp:OR is not allowed. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
It is admittedly both a controversial and a hated (by the Guardian-reading left) newspaper, but the Daily Mail is NOT an unreliable source, neither in "England" or in Ireland. Full stop. This is just a simple, blatant and naked untruth. The Socialist Worker and the Morning Star in England are more unreliable as sources than The Mail. -- KC9TV 19:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
If we are using The Socialist Worker or the Morning Star as sources in this article, feel free to remove them. And I will fully stand by my claim that Daily Mail headlines, such as these prime examples from today "My Big Fat Shanty Town Prom: They may live in a favela but these girls from Rio de Janeiro still insist on a pink limousine for their big night " and "'You sold me out!': The bizarre moment a murder suspect dumped a cup of water on attorney's head DURING trial " "Your kitchen sponge is 200,000 times dirtier than a toilet seat - and could even lead to PARALYSIS " "Who's laughing now? CLOWN arrested after bizarre brawl with cop on busy street corner" are not reliable sources and any reliable content that may appear in the Mail will be covered by a source with an actual reputation for fact checking and reliability and not stories headed by "Found: The cells that make cancer run riot. Kill them and you could destroy the disease... " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's another WP:RS that repeats Praveen Halappanavar's viewpoint that Savita died because the hospital didn't perform an abortion. "A woman has died because Galway University hospital refused to perform an abortion needed to prevent serious risk to her life. This is a situation we were told would never arise. An unviable foetus – the woman was having a miscarriage – was given priority over the woman's life," said Daly.Guardian 14 Nov
This supports the guideline WP:NPOV that a viewpoint should be included when it is repeated by multiple WP:RSs. It is indeed a dead horse. This viewpoint belongs in the story. --Nbauman (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what your point in posting is - there has never been any question about what Mr Halappanavar's opinion and viewpoint is and that many sources have reprinted his opinion. The question is what prominence to give his opinion and how to properly frame it within the article to prevent it from having WP:UNDUE weight. And no matter how many sources print his opinion, its still just his opinion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
The husband's and family's opinion made the death notable. He considers that Ireland's Catholic laws killed the deceased. That made the incident notable, gave it publicity and that is why it makes the incident notable enough for us to write about it. It is simply irrelevant whether the husband was an engineer or a cobbler. Another point that fails mention is that the deceased was a Hindu and yet she had to allegedly suffer Catholic laws, across the world religious laws are required to be followed by followers of that religion and not forced on others. I am going to mention that she was a Hindu. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
(1)To say prima facie Halappanavar's death was caused by denial of termination of her pregnancy when it was indicated, is untrue. The nearest reliable source I can find on the timing of events (http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1114/timeline-savita-halappanavars-death.html) shows that at the time of abortion request, her only symptoms were back pain which is NOT an indication for abortion in Ireland. At the time of request there was no indication displayed thus far in the media that there was a serious risk to her life, something that is central to the issue. Any sources claiming otherwise are inaccurate as there patently aren't the fine details required in relation to the case to make this supposition. It would appear that the appearance of signs of serious compromise became apparent AFTER the doctors removed the foetus.
(2)It is certain that Irish laws were central to the decision, laws in any country are dictate abortion procedures. However, there is no reliable indication that ethos dictated decision making. Quotes, no matter how relaible, stating that the doc said it was a "catholic country" do not infer ethos affecting decision, it more reflects an accurate summary of why the laws are in place. In any case, all quotes to this affect are sourced from a distraught husband who right or wrong has a chip on his shoulder against the hospital and the doc.
(3)There was no application of catholic religious laws, there was only application of Irish law. It may be inspired by a catholic voting public, but there is a large and serious distinction between the two.
(4) I'm not a seasoned wikieditor, but it would seem to me that if a reliable news source quotes an unreliable source, it does not make the source reliable. Downwiththissortofthing (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The whole issue is the perception that Ireland's Catholic laws killed her. The perception amongst reliable sources. Do septicemia deaths induce Prime Ministers to make statements and cause envoy's to be summoned? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
if the actual investigation determines the real cause of death was antibiotic resistant bacteria they most certainly will. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
That is an exceptional claim. Would you be able to provide an example? The issue snowballed because of a perception. Like there was a perception that Iraq harboured WMDs, so everyone was gung ho about it.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:28, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I was looking at the Wikipedia article "Case X", it informs "The majority opinion (Finlay C.J., McCarthy, Egan and O'Flaherty J.J.) held that a woman had a right to an abortion under Article 40.3.3 if there was "a real and substantial risk" to her life. This right did not exist if there was a risk to her health but not her life; however it did exist if the risk was the possibility of suicide." So apparently the doctors managing the deceased waited for the "risk to health" to exacerbate to a "risk to her life". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The issue of "risk to the mother's life" comes up a lot in the U.S., in Catholic hospitals and in states that have passed laws restricting abortions. In many articles, doctors have complained that the laws are written as if it were possible to tell with certainty when there was a risk to the mother's life, but in fact, they can't tell -- until the mother's dead. They can only tell that the mother is in a dangerous situation, and she would be safer if she had an abortion. I can't say that in this article until someone makes that point in a WP:RS, but when they do, it should go in. --Nbauman (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

More sources

I don't want to distract from the discussion above, but here are more WP:RS that repeat the claim that Savita Halappanavar died because she didn't get an abortion.[2][3] --Nbauman (talk) 21:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

answered above. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
(See section below.) The progression "medical indication- Catholic laws even on Hindus - denial of medical intervention - complications - death - notability" is what sources present as a consensus. The article isn't neutral and accurate in its present form. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Death due to religious dogma

Is there a category for death due to religious dogma? This article needs to be placed in that category. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Filing it under "Blood Libel" would be much more appropriate! See "Catholic Ethos?" above Kilbarry1 (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You may not be wrong. However the overwhelming consensus presently disagrees with you, your theory is like one of the theories called "conspiracy theories" in relation to the WTC incidents, or the one that disputes Shakespeare the authorship of his works. After all they may be true. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Father Shenan's "Catholic ethos" statement was first added to this article and also to its lead by me. A good article merely mirrors sources, a majority view is that Ireland's Catholic laws and ethos led her to her death. The article should say so. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
A good article represents the facts as reported in the reliable sources. Yes there are a lot of opinions out there. Opinions by people without medical training who do not have specific information about what went on in the hospital except for one persons view. We present the views as they are held by the reputable sources about the topic. In this case, the medical community and the views held by Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Resources take precedence. You will not find any of MEDRES sources making such a claim at this point and time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
There aren't lots of opinions. There is a clear consensus. We cannot indulge in original research and worry about whether one person's view is appropriate. That is for those who have contributed to the sources Wikipeida considers reliable. The article exists because of its notability, the notability is because of a perception that it was Ireland's Catholic laws that killed her a Hindu. The perception may be wrong, I do not contest that as a possibility. However to be silent about the factor that contributed to the notability of the subject is bad encyclopaedia creation. Secondly there are no "experts" on Wikipedia, it is consensus that decides content. The mention of the deceased's religion is important because in many countries religious laws are applied to the adherents of that particular faith, for example Taliban required Hindus to wear yellow as they were excused from following Islamic laws, Malaysia too has separate laws for different faiths based on their faiths. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
None of the reliable sources are in fact claiming what you state they are claiming. the are reporting opinions - opinions of non-medical professionals who do not have access to any of the required details of exactly what went on. wikipedia does not accept the presentation of man on the street interviews of movies as reliable reviews of movies that they have actually seen. there is a much higher bar than movies when we are talking about medical facts and events as we are clearly doing in this article. see WP:MEDRES. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why you have linked to wp:DEADHORSE. I don't understand the fact/fiction debate. As a final comment for now I repeat myself: the notability of the incident is because of a perception, I never claimed it was a fact, perhaps the incident will make someone to write in a medical or legal journal and then there will be a debate. Perhaps if anyone is unhappy with bad journalism he could write to say for example the BBC, they have an ombudsman office. Wikipedia is a tertiary source created sourcing reliable sources. If BBC for example is taken off the list of RS, we will not refer to it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
there is not a fact/fiction issue. there is a difference between fact and opinion and an issue of how wikipedia deals with and presents (or doesnt) opinions. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Here's how WP deals with and presents opinions: WP:NPOV "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." Opinions are viewpoints.
The viewpoint of the husband, informed by discussions with the doctors at the hospital and in his own family, that his wife died because she didn't have an abortion in time, has been repeated by many WP:RS. It goes in.
The viewpoint of the husband and others, that the hospital didn't perform an abortion in time, because Ireland is a Catholic country, has also been repeated by many WP:RSs. It also goes in.
(And the husband doesn't have to be a medical expert to know that the doctors in the family told him that she died because she didn't get an abortion in time, or that the doctors in the hospital told him that they couldn't perform an abortion because it was a Catholic country.) --Nbauman (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
actually he needs a hell of a lot more to claim with any validity that his wife died because she didnt get an abortion. valid medical claims need to meet WP:MEDRES. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This is an inflammatory comment thread that doesn't really help the article. JayHubie (talk) 18:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Cut and Paste copyright violations

I dont have time right now to track down who, but SOMEONE or SOMEONES involved in editing this article has a very bad tendency to cut and paste huge swaths of content from the sources. That is a violation of Wikipedia's WP:COPYRIGHT policy and must stop. Editors who continue to do so are advised that copyright violation is the quick road to being blocked from editing.

a version (properly re-written in an editor's own words ) of this content is probably important to have in the article, but I do not have time to edit it now. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sepsis timing

The BBC claims that Savita Halappanavar had "blood poisoning" (sepsis) on admittance (20 or 21 Oct.), while the husband claims she only contracted it on 24 Oct. (after the fetus was removed). This is significant because sepsis was the cause of death, and it is not clear whether she was terminally ill before admittance, or if aborting would have saved her, or if a complication during the removal caused the sepsis. A better understanding of these events is required before the political views in this article can take any relevance.

Additionally, this article is entirely unencyclopedic. With the exception of 5 copy-pasted lines in the lede and another 5 lines in the "Halappanavar's death" section, there is no factual content in here at all. This article is not about the death of Savita Halappanavar. It is a recording of reactions to it. A naïve reader would not be able to understand the event at all by reading this page, and I was only able to figure out the timing of events (which are not consistent source to source) by reading the citations. This is exactly the opposite of what an encyclopedic article should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.188.8.27 (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a work in progress and you can help. Articles about emerging events are frequently problematic at Wikipedia. They frequently bring new editors who have no experience with writing an encyclopedia, are subject to frequent multiple edits as new sources appear, the sources themselves may be providing contradictory information, and yes, it becomes the target of people attempting to push a particular point of view.
The title of the article is a Wikipedia standard convention as being a shortening of Events related to the death of .... As of now, there have been no completed investigations to give detailed information about the specific medical incidents and timing that lead to the death. The impact and notability in the world in an encyclopedic view is not the actual death, but the events it spawned. Wikipedia covers events which have been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources which this subject certainly has been.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Snappy appears to have addressed the issue adding specific dates. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Husband Praveen Halappanavar

The husband Praveen Halappanavar, was not simply an engineer, he was an engineer for Boston Scientific, which is a major manufacturer of advanced medical devices, such as cardiac pacemakers.

He and his wife came from a family with many doctors. He discussed his wife's death with both doctors at the hospital, and doctors in his own family.

So he is qualified to understand the medical issues, he's informed about the facts, and his opinion is an informed opinion.

He seems to be more qualified to comment than Taoiseach Enda Kenny.

But this is a side issue. His wife died, he investigated the matter, he formed conclusions, he's been quoted by many WP:RSs, and that is reason enough under WP guidelines (particularly WP:NPOV for him to be a significant viewpoint that should be quoted in the story. --Nbauman (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

propose your content and your sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Do a Google search for "Praveen Halappanavar Boston Scientific". http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/ireland-abortion-scrutiny-death Many of the sources in the article mention it already.
BTW, the article doesn't mention the husband's name. That certainly belongs. --Nbauman (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Being a medical devices engineer doesn't make someone an expert on biology. That's like saying people who design computer mice are experts at Windows. JayHubie (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

When?

Why are these specific dates needed? They would be nice to have, but I didn't see a detailed chronology in any of the coverage, and figuring them out from the news coverage would be unreliable and WP:SYNTH. If you can get the dates from a WP:RS, you are free to insert them, but why do you need the When template? --Nbauman (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

just because the reliable sources dont have an accurate timeline doesnt mean that the missing details in our article should not be highlighted. the fact that the reliable sources dont have something so essential says something. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
What does it say? --Nbauman (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
it says that anyone making factual claims about the medical events and causes of the case that doesnt even have accurate timing of the events is just blowing air out of his ass and not someone that wikipedia should be presenting as anything other than that. ie WP:UNDUE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:UNDUE doesn't say that. It doesn't say anything about specific dates.
WP:UNDUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
Under WP:UNDUE, it's a significant viewpoint. Many WP:RSs reported the case without having the exact chronology. For Wikipedia purposes, if many WP:RSs say something, it should go in, and under WP:NPOV, WP:ALLEGED, WP:SYNTH, and other guidelines, you can't make any POV editorial comments about their credibility. --Nbauman (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
yes it does. UNDUE says that we do not give undue weight or airtime or value to points of view that are not credible. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Could you please quote the text of WP:UNDUE that says we don't give value to points of view that are not credible? I can't find it. --Nbauman (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
it is more clearly spelled out in the sections that follow the specific UNDUE - Giving "equal validity" "we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." Good research "Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available" and in WP:FRINGE "Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources. A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." and in the verify policy WP:REDFLAG "claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;" and "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, ... especially in science, medicine"
for example, while the viewpoint that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks was infact widely held in America, we do not give any actual weight to that viewpoint because it is not supported by the actual experts and facts. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
and when it comes to medical claims, "reliable" source takes on a different meaning Wikipedia:RS#Medical_claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The Irish Times has published a timeline.

International response: Fringe view has no place

International response informs "In an editorial on 17 November, The Times of India said, "There appears to be a tendency to view this issue in terms of India versus Ireland or the Catholic faith against other religions. To fall prey to such tendencies would be a serious mistake and a great disservice to the memory of Savita. ... Adding a nationalist or communal tone to the debate detracts from the merit of argument rather than enhancing it."

Are there media reports that allude that the issue is " India vs Ireland" or "Catholic vs others" , is the Times of India view a fringe view. I think so. I request other editors to "judge" and retain or remove it. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

you are seriously putting forth that the Times of India editorial board is not a reliable source? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
It looks like we have a straw man in this story. We have many sources denying that Savita Halappanavar was denied appropriate treatment because of a "Catholic ethos". But I don't see anybody claiming that she was denied treatment because of a "Catholic ethos." According to Praveen Halappanavar, the doctors told him that they couldn't give her an abortion until the fetus' heart stopped beating, because Ireland is a Catholic country. What's a Catholic ethos? Nobody is complaining about a Catholic ethos; they're complaining about laws that were passed at the urging of the Catholic clergy that can send doctors to jail if they perform an abortion and a court decides afterwards that the abortion wasn't covered in the exceptions. --Nbauman (talk) 06:30, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
TOI isn't a non-RS, its view doesn't represent the international response and is thus wp:FRINGE Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
if you seriously believe that it is not a reliable source, take it to the reliable source notice board and be prepared to be laughed off the stage, particularly when you yourself are making comments like "(2) That it were Ireland's Catholic laws and ethos that were responsible for the decision that her caregivers took. (3) that ther family was unhappy that Catholic religious laws applied to those like Halappanavar who was a Hindu and not a Catholic. " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I never said TOI wasn't non-reliable, I just said that its said editorial is a fringe view, the two are different, my comments are entirely sourced from reliable sources. Why would someone laugh at something I did not do? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:36, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
if the Times has stated a FRINGE description, since it accurately describes the position that you have been so heavily advocating that the catholic ethos should not have been applied to Savita because she is a Hindu, then your position is fringe, and we need to take that out of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Hey that isn't my position; that is Halappanavar's mother's position, that Catholic laws should not have been applied to her a Hindu. As I mentioned above, all we do is judge sources for reliability, weight, etc. and then represent them. I seek evidence that the TOI view is not fringe, my reading considers it so, marking the issue as Catholic Ireland vs others. The overall issue as represented in reliable surces is about Catholic Irish laws hurting its own citizens/residents. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
and you are STILL verifying that the analysis by TOI is accurately reflecting the facts on the ground and NOT in any way FRINGE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:28, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
My considered opinion is that TOI's view is fringe, you have to come with evidence in the form or RS say the same thing that TOI does. reliably sourced etc. material that agrees with TOI's view as evidence that TOI's view isn't FRINGE. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
take your ridiculous claim that TOI editorial board is fringe to the notice boards. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Isn't that a "ridiculous" accusation? All I say is TOI's opinion in this case is a FRINGE view, I am exercising care just as you advice below: "dont be ridiculous. wikipedia editors ALL THE TIME are required to assess what is printed in reliable sources and make assessments about whether or not it is appropriate for an article and if it is figure out how to appropriately frame it". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
make your case Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Times_of_India_opinion_-_Fringe.3F -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:09, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Abortion medically necessary

Here's a peer-reviewed medical journal article that addresses the question of whether an abortion is necessary to protect the mother's health in septic pregnancy. This article has been quoted in many WP:RS.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2636458/pdf/1774.pdf

When There’s a Heartbeat: Miscarriage Management in Catholic-Owned Hospitals

AmJPublicHealth. 2008;98:1774–1778. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.126730

--Nbauman (talk) 04:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a forum and a 2008 paper cannot be used in this article without being a blatant violation of WP:OR so I am not certain what you expect from posting this -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of posting this is as follows:
Some people in Talk have challenged the claim that denial of abortion led to Savita Halappanavar's death, and claim instead that she might have died from septicemia anyway even if she did have a prompt abortion.
This AJPH article is a WP:RS to say that the standard treatment for septicemia in a case like this is to perform an immediate abortion, and that doctors in Catholic hospitals are often forced to violate hospital rules, and perform an abortion, in order to save the mother's life.
A WP:RS is likely to make this point about the Savita Halappanavar case. When it happens, this AJPH article will be useful in understanding this point. Medical discussions are often abbreviated, and laymen who don't understand the background are likely are likely to misunderstand them. People who read this article are less likely to get into "But it doesn't say that" arguments on Talk. --Nbauman (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
What right do you have to close this discussion? We never reached consensus, and you're not an Administrator. You have not replied to any of my explanations above. In addition, you seem to be deleting WP:RS discussion about this issue in the story. --Nbauman (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
My question, which you haven't answered, is what right do you have to declare this discussion off-topic, since you're not an Administrator, and you haven't gotten consensus? --Nbauman (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
administrators are just editors with a mop that can clean up messes. I and every editor has the right AND duty to uphold policy of WP:NOT#FORUM and the talk page guidelines WP:TPG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Medical sources required for medical claims

The opinion of a doctor in India who is basing her opinion on newspaper stories is NOT a qualified source for such claims or opinions in Wikipedia articles. the content is being discussed in the reliable sources notice board. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with WP:MEDMOS and I don't think it supports your claims.
Could you please cite the exact text of WP:MEDMOS that supports your claim? --Nbauman (talk) 20:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge.". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
but even without that, it dont take a genius to know that a doc making a life and death diagnosis over content in the popular media is a quack. that is just common sense and WP:REDFLAG. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I believe that this article contains viewpoints (opinions) from multiple WP:RS about whether the lack of abortion caused the death. Viewpoints don't have to be correct or medically accurate. Some of them will be wrong. Under WP:NPOV they merely must be supported by multiple WP:RS. That's the applicable guideline.
Could you please cite the text from WP:MEDMOS or WP:MEDRS that demonstrates those guidelines apply to the viewpoints in this article? --Nbauman (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
why in the world would we even consider adding viewpoints that have no basis in medical fact? we owe are readers better. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
(1) How do you establish that they have no basis in medical fact? They are the opinions of a medical doctor. You are just a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor.
(2) We would add viewpoints that have no basis in medical fact because they are repeated by multiple WP:RS under WP:NPOV. Can you please explain why we should not follow those guidelines here? --Nbauman (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
if you think they have medical basis, then you are not qualified to be a pseudonymous Wikipedia editor. so here I am left with a quandry, to either either assume you are here with good intentions but not competent, or assume that you are here to push an agenda.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
for your second question, we dont include anything that constitutes a medical analysis of the situation (or a viewpoint of based on medical analysis) until we have the reports back in i misread your statement. but clearly just because something appears in a reliable source does not mean that we have an obigation to include it. particularly viewpoints. we have an obligation to our readers to present the best content that we can - filtering out crap that may have been printed somewhere, even by a reliable source, in their quest to fill column inches for the 24/7 news cycle and draw in eyeballs by titilating content. we are better than that. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
According to WP:NPOV, we edit "representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." If they have been published by multiple reliable sources, they get proportionate representation in the article.
Show me the WP guidelines that say we have to filter out crap. The WP guidelines say we filter out non-WP:RS. You have already posted a notice on WP:RS Notice board and a real scientist told you, as I did, that is an opinion from a WP:RS.
I think you're getting WP:TENDENTIOUS, specifically disputing sources, repeating arguments without convincing people, and not accepting independent input.
You've particularly and repeatedly violated One who deletes the cited additions of others,
This is a particular problem in this article, because under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion there are special restrictions on abortion-related articles. I don't know whether this article is subject to 1RR, but it should be.
I'm going to wait until tomorrow to see how the responses on the notice board turn out, and then I'm going to make the appropriate changes according to the above rules. --Nbauman (talk) 00:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
your TOI quack doc doesnt qualify under your terms either - she is a clear fringe minority in her medical opinion. no other source is showing such a viewpoint, and even within your source her opinion is disqualified as being worthy by TWO other sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Hema Divakar is a gynaecologist and president-elect of the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India. On what basis are you calling her a quack? (BTW, that's libelous.)
Several other doctors have agreed with her, as published in WP:RS.
You haven't explained any reason under Wikipedia rules for deleting it. You've merely said that other doctors disagree with her. That's the way it should be. It's a controversy. We give viewpoints that agree with her, and viewpoints that disagree with her. WP:NPOV
You've simply deciding that she's wrong, and asserting the right to delete her quote because of that. That violates [4]. --Nbauman (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I have not decided she is wrong - i have decided that NO ONE yet has access to all of the data necessary to make any legitimate diagnosis about whether whether a procedure would or would not have had an effect. and what the few comments at RS notice board have said, and I agree with them is that the source is reliably recording her statement, NOT any validation that her uninformed opinion is a valid representation of the medical community which is seriously under question by the same reliable source that provides her opinion as they provide TWICE the number of people who disagree with her. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The view of the president elect of an all India organisation is notable, how can anyone assume that the person didnt have access to the necessary details required to make the comment she made? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

because NO ONE has the detials. the investigative panel was not even named when she made her wild and baseless claims based purely on the tripe in the news media. What proof do you have that she is doing any more than blowing hot air out of her ass? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
For Wikipedia purposes the proof (and the only proof) we need is that multiple WP:RSs are making the same argument, even if other WP:RSs came to a different conclusion. Your personal opinion of the accuracy of a doctor's statements has zero weight in Wikipedia editing decisions. --Nbauman (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
dont be ridiculous. wikipedia editors ALL THE TIME are required to assess what is printed in reliable sources and make assessments about whether or not it is appropriate for an article and if it is figure out how to appropriately frame it. you have still only the single source reporting the opinion of one doc in which she admits that she is only basing her guess on what she has seen in the media. presenting viewpoints based on clouds of dust is irresponsible. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:24, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

To accurately reflect the source, we could include: TOI reported that doctors in India, basing their opinions solely on information that appeared in the media, have wildly different assessments of the medical situation with Dr. Hema Divakar believeing that with an abortion "Savita would have died two days earlier" while other doctors believe that the University Hospital had "blundered" in not providing an abortion. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:42, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

To say "doctors in India, basing their opinions solely on information that appeared in the media" would be WP:EDITORIALIZING. In fact, it would be a textbook case of WP:EDITORIALIZING.
Wikipedia can't quote a WP:RS and in its own voice cast doubt on that WP:RS. The only way you can cast doubt on that WP:RS would be to find another WP:RS to say that the doctors we quoted in India were "basing their opinions solely on information that appeared in the media".
The WP:RS would have to be commenting on this specific controversy. You couldn't just find a WP:RS saying that in general, doctors can't make medical decisions based on what they read in the newspapers. That would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (just as it would be WP:OR and WP:SYNTH for me to include that AJPH article which said that Catholic hospitals generally often forbid doctors from performing an abortion to save the life of the mother).
They would at least have to be addressing the comments of doctors on the Savita Halappanavar case specifically.
We already have Enda Kenny saying, "I don't think we should say anything about this until we are in possession of all the facts." If you can find a WP:RS saying something to the effect of, "I don't think we should say anything about this based on newspaper accounts," that could go in. You can't say it in the article based on your own authority. --Nbauman (talk) 22:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
it is not editorializing, it an essential placing the content in the exact same context as the source does "Dr. Divakar — president-elect of the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India — told The Hindu on Thursday: “Based on information in the media," -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually we have the following: "Gynaecologist Hema Divakar defended the Irish doctors for not aborting Savita’s foetus saying that under the circumstances, it may have been equally dangerous to have done the procedure."[5]
in the second story you now link to instead of the one originally used, TOI are reprinting her statement from the previous paper where they may have neglected to also include her explicit caveat; however, the STILL felt it necessary to repeat that fact that " Two " ( again ,TWICE the number) " other doctors, however, said the doctors at University Hospital Galway in western Ireland had blundered " -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:25, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
actually it is the same source and you are just ignoring the part where the doctor explicitly makes caveat that she is basing her opinion just on the media coverage and the fact that the TOI is including twice the number of doctors who have different views.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:59, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"anti-abortion" vs "pro-life"

I notice that the main page is switching between referring to the commentary made from the anti-abortion side of the debate as "pro-life" and "anti-abortion". I feel it should be called the latter in this context as, although the term "pro-life" has come to be associated with opposition to abortion:

- anti-abortion is a clearer concept

- the disambiguation page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-life_(disambiguation) suggests it can have several meanings

- more to the point in an instance where a woman actually died, for the group refuting a highly probable cause of her death and campaigning against legislation in similar circumstances, to be called "pro-life" is highly offensive to some of Wikipedia's readers. However, I can't see "anti-abortion" being an offensive term to any potential reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.10.154 (talk) 17:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

We follow the sources and our MOS, which are both against your position. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
May we have the link please? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes, please. Having already reverted on the basis that this issue is covered somewhere in the MOS, I can find no such clarification. RashersTierney (talk) 18:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Our sources:

  • Kenny, Ciara (15 November 2012). "Lobby group accused of exploiting death". The Irish Times. Retrieved 17 November 2012. uses "Anti-abortion campaigners" as the general descriptor in their lead, but no specific identification for Life Institute, but I think their name speaks for itself.

-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:02, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider this source too.

why not consider them? because those sources are not being used for content in that section. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have no strong personal preference wrt terminology on this general topic, but WP:NPOV would seem to indicate to use the preferred terms as expressed by the protagonists in relation to themselves, and to avoid the terms they use in reference to 'the other side'. Therefore use 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice', not 'pro-abortion' and 'anti-abortion' etc. etc. RashersTierney (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't find anything in WP:NPOV that indicates we should use the preferred terms used by the protagonists. Can you give me the text? --Nbauman (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Inquest

We're starting to get info from the inquest, eg. [6]; y'all may want to include/update. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Death of Savita Halappanavar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Death of Savita Halappanavar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Death of Savita Halappanavar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

What pro choice orgs knew before story breaking

There has been some edits recently about how much pro choice orgs knew before the story broke. And some edits about how prominently to display this. As the article makes clear (based on verified sources) , friends and family of Savita contacted Galway Pro Choice, and national journalists, shortly after her death in order to publicise what had happened. There is no attempt to hide that fact. Some people (including newspaper articles) omit the fact that her friends and family reached out to journalists (Kitty Holland) or pro choice groups, and instead try to imply that there was a form of conspiracy.

It would be good to get consensus on this point and where to put it in the article. Ebelular (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

No objection to the fact of friends and family of Halappanavar contacting pro-choice organisations and media being included, though I really don't see its relevance. It certainly doesn't warrant being in the lede. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 15:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)


It would be good to get consensus on this Ebelular. Yet your friend user:Bastun seems to think consensus is already established in their edit summary? So which is it?
The "How" and "why" the death became (A) a major news story and (B) it became erroneously linked to the abortion movement, needs to be in the lede. We are to summarize these facts according to the chronology of events, according to what the reliable sources state. One such reliable source, you know, the very sources in the lede before you 2 began reverting it back into this dreadful state that propagates nothing short of the medically unsourced suggestion that abortion is a cure for bacterial infection. One concise source is the following,
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/prochoice-activists-got-tipoff-on-tragic-death-28902755.html
It states. three days before the story broke on Wednesday.
The ICN web discussion was sparked by a member, Andrew B, who wrote: "Hi all, there are rumours that a major news story related to denial of abortion access is going to break in the media early this coming week. I don't want to put anything more in an email as the information I have is both fragmentary and complex but I have talked to a few people, some of whom have heard similar details.
"Because of the complexity of the situation it's not obvious how best to proceed so we are calling an emergency meeting of ICN (if that is what we are called, I'm not sure after last Sat) for tomorrow in Seomra Spraoi. We hope by then to have more definite information around which we can make some collective decisions about how to proceed. Apologies if this is all a little mysterious but the reason why I didn't want to put specific details down by email will probably be clear tomorrow.
"I'm sending this out to the list of people who received the planning documents for the Saturday meeting and I'll also post it on the internal forum."
Now, to adequately describe the chronology of events, is the job of editors. Though with User:Ebelular's edit history in mind, focused pretty well exclusively on pro-choice articles, it appears that there is a major WP:AXE to grind here. Not to mention how curiously User:Bastun arrived as rapidly as they have to do the very same edit that User:Ebelular conducted.
On examination of both your edit histories, it appears that you both know each other rather intimately, as you have together edited a number of articles on political parties in Ireland. Therefore for that reason, I doubt that a factually written account of events is going to be possible here,nor do I think an unbiased consensus shall be reached here. So I hope you don't mind that I'll start a request for comment. So as to, you know, get an actual consensus on this matter.
Boundarylayer (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Having checked the talk page, for consensus. There appears to have been a consensus to include the same sentiments that are expressed in my recent edits to the lede, as far back as 2012. Namely to include Praveen's opinions. as User:User:Yogesh Khandke wrote. As The husband's and family's opinion made the death notable. He [considered] that Ireland's Catholic laws killed the deceased. That made the incident notable, gave it publicity and that is why it makes the incident notable enough for us to write about it.
Why you two have removed the role he played in turning a case of bacterial infection, into one to erroneously be about "denial of abortion". Is both contrary to what appears to have been the actual consensus previously established, and frankly denies readers with the knowledge of how this tragedy got picked up by the abortion movement.
Boundarylayer (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Two Irish editors with an interest in Irish current affairs? Shocking, isn't it. WP:SPI is thataway... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 08:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
FTR I've never met Bastun, the only communication we've had is Wikipedia Talk pages, and edit summaries. I've been on Wikipedia for 13 years now, and I edit things that are interesting to me. Now it's Irish abortion stuff. I've also do a few on Irish LGBT issues and history. But years ago, I spent a lot of time editing Metroid Prime articles. So? I edit what I'm interested in. Abortion is currently a hot topic in Ireland, so to counter WP:WORLDVIEW, I'm working on this area.
Yes, I reverted some changes you did because you changed it read like a press release from pro-life campaigners, and was very biased. You claimed pro-choice campaigners "began to prepare the selling of the story to advance their cause", and that they wanted " "a rallying call" for abortion on demand". (which is also a biased term), and then imply they misled the people. You call all newspapers, radio and TV "the abortion focussed news media". You have rewritten the article to read like the press released from Pro Life Campaign and Youth Defence, both pro-life campaign groups who blame "system failures", state Ireland's abortion laws weren't relevant, that the "biased media" used it to push for abortion, etc etc. Wikipedia has a WP:NPOV, we can't just repeat what the press relases from campaign groups say.
I'm not really sure why you're talking about "cronology of news reports", since the article is quite clear how the story got from friends & family of Savita to the news media. ____08:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
The 4th paragraph in the article after you added (about the "abortion focussed media") only has a reference to a letter the doctor wrote to a newspaper, the term "abortion focussed media" doesn't occur there, you must have added it. The reference just talks about how ESBL bacteria is spreading and our anti-biotics aren't as effective. The "main point" the doctor seems to talk about is how no-one is paying attention to the problem of anti-biotic resistant bacteria. But you've phrased it as "the problem is everyone is talking about abortion". Along with the biased "abortion focussed media" phrase, you've misused the source. ____Ebelular (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
After your edits, the last paragraph of the lede is full of biased, unsourced content, "in response to the abortion protest movement" (no mention of the A,_B_and_C_v_Ireland case? Blame it all on those uppity protesters?). "This bill stretches the 8th amendment" (biased much?) "cases were full-term abortions" (biased) "are conducted if and only if, the mother expresses suicidal ideation." No, the act (it's an act now), allows termination if it's to save a woman's life, but requires early delivery if late. Late term abotions could be carried out if needed to save a life, not just for suicide. "This re-interpretation of the constitution" wha? The Supreme Court interprets the constitution, and they said that's how it's done. Abortion in cases of suicide has been approved by the people twice in 2 referenda. You also link to a source which is incorrectly states abortion for FFA is legal in Ireland, which it's not.
This is outright bias, front and centre. ___Ebelular (talk) 09:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I always find it endlessly illuminating how those who claim to be un-biased are always the most biased editors imaginable. You asked a direct question, I provided the quote from the Irish newspaper. You fail to engage with that article and have instead moved to gishgalloping about some other preceived "bias". So could you perhaps acknowledge that the ICN were aware, put Praveen in contact with Kitty-so-and-so and were networking behind the scenes for what was to be "a major story"..before it actually became a "major news story". I think what I'm asking is, can you get real?
Moving on, to get this straight, both you and your editor-buddy are indeed friends, know each other and have a long history of agreeing with one another on Irish political matters while editing wikipedia?...Yet you two come in here, feel no editorial issues with failing to disclose this fact and then try to pass yourselves off, as both totally unbiased independent editors? Replying to one another, to create artifical consensus, talk endlessly about consensus in the edit summary of this article...yet when anyone actually takes a real look at the history of this article, including the previous consensus on this talk page. It shows that - It was the consensus to include the opinion of Praveen in the lede. Yet you two have continually removed that paragraph?
Perhaps you need to take a look at WP:CONSENSUS and especially WP:GOODFAITH. When you start foaming at the mouth with accusations of me being "clearly Pro-life" in the edit summary and "biased". I am not amused. I edit nuclear energy articles pretty well exclusively...you 2 on the other hand exclusively write on Irish politics. With the same political leanings, so if you wish to start labelling or describing one another, the only thing "clearly" obvious about the editors of this page. Is that you two have WP:AXEs to grind.
As for the rest of your reply, it is just one giant gishgallop. For example this whole section, that you ascribe to me, is actually (A) direct quotes from the Irish newsparer and (B) a summary of the sentiments from the source. Sources which you seem to make a conscious decision to ignore? These are quotations from the source - "a rallying call"..."a simple morality tale". They are WP:QUOTES. Then you say that I have rewritten the article to read like the press release from Pro Life Campaign and Youth Defence, both pro-life campaign groups who blame "system failures." - (1)Is that so? To start with, I don't know what press releases you are referring to, nor have I ever heard of "youth defense", but please provide actual evidence for your accusation here. What press releases, specifically are you talking about? I'd really like to see them. As you know what they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
(2) It is pretty plain to see that you are clearly in WP:BATTLE and WP:AXE mode and have a deep motivation to WP:WRONG. So I would recommend you both remove yourself from editing anything relating to politics for a while, as this is pretty farcical. I mean, not only are you fabricating demonstrable falsehoods now but you do realize, I didn't actually type this apparent trigger word or phrase of yours either, this "system failures"...you do realize that? In fact, that phrase is still in your preferred version of the article. So what are you two on? Moreover, "system failures"/failures to implement the sepsis managment protocols, is actually a fair description of what the Arulkumaran et al 2013 report describes. So I didn't remove this descriptive phrase upon re-writing the lede, as it's pretty fair. Now can you explain, why you feel so triggered by this accurate use of phrase? Praveen won a medical negligence lawsuit, precisely because of medical negligence a systematic failure to look at her blood count. Therefore the phrase, "System failures", seems fair. Though I would love to hear why you think it "biased front and centroid".
Boundarylayer (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I linked to the press release from PLC and YD. Stop seeing conspiracies between me and Bastun, I've addressed that.
Spelling it youth defense is telling, are you American? YD have been big in Irish abortion activism for ~25 years, if you don't know who they are, perhaps you shouldn't edit articles on abortion in Ireland until you're more familiar with the area.
You are changing the article to remove references to Ireland's abortion law (one of the recommendations of the Arulkumaran report BTW), and to promote the [sole] blame of "system failures". This is in keeping with campaign tactics from all pro-life campaign groups in Ireland. Attempts to downplay, and remove the abortion law aspect, is an example of WP:DUE.
A doctor wrote about anti-biotic resistant bacteria, and you made up the biased term "abortion focused media". I countered a few points that you had added that were biased, that's not a gish gallop, and hardly "giant". You include description about "stretching the 8th amendment", and "re-interpreting the constitution", both fringe pro-life talking points. And the source you give for this doesn't even include that.
You're accusing me of being "triggered", a common internet troll insult against left wing people, and "foaming at the mouth". I'm trying to help you, to engage in conversation about problematic parts (IMO), and you don't want to listen. Stop quoting South Park, and try to have a conversation.
You're talking about consensus. Maybe work on writing neutral, sourced content first.
____Ebelular (talk) 08:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
You have already been directed towards WP:SPI. If you're convinced Ebelular and I are one and the same, that's where to file your request for investigation. In the meantime, have a read of WP:NPA. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Ebelular, you make me laugh you know that? As you start by claiming no conspiracy then you go full-bore into paranoid schizophernic-mode and you go and read into the spelling of an organization...to apparently hint at America? At South Park? at "fringe-talking points"...when really you haven't provided a single bit of evidence for any of this red-herring laden gish-galloping of yours. Do you actually want me to take you seriously, or what? Dear lúnasa.
Look, as it stands right now, this article is stuck in some kind of 2012 time-warp and is highly politicized, when all the sources post 2013, reveal that Savita's death had really nothing to do with abortion...but everything to do with medical negligence. That's the story here, along with the fact that her death was apparently hijacked by ICN, and the Irish pro-choice movement at large and remember, I'm not saying this, journalists and medical professionals post-2013 are the ones saying this. Though feel free to find some 2013 articles that don't put the issue squarely on medical negligence, I would love to see them.
Eilis O'Hanlon of the independent in 2012 even stated that in its initial coverage, the media was overwhelming "abortion focused", that's not "bias" as you claim. That's a fact, supported by innumerable sources. The Irish Times had "opted to present what had happened as a simple morality tale" and that "the debate for the rest of the week was coloured entirely by The Irish Times's decision to reduce a complex personal tragedy, about which few facts were still known, to a rallying call.
Pro-choice activists got tip-off on tragic death
In 2013.VICTORIA WHITE: Savita’s death is not about abortion — it is about medical negligence.Irish Examiner
2013.Damning Savita report details litany of hospital care failures The damning report concludes that there was “a failure in the provision of the most basic elements of patient care to Savita Halappanavar and also the failure to recognise and act upon signs of her clinical deterioration in a timely and appropriate manner”] - The journal.
2013.Savita's husband to sue her doctor for negligence "A HSE clinic review into her treatment was published in June. It found there had been inadequate assessment and monitoring of the patient." - The independent.
2013.Timeline: Savita Halappanavar's treatment. "No doctor examines Savita through the night. "Her vital signs are not checked every four hours, which is hospital policy". - RT-feckin-É.
So you two politicking-types need to realize, this article is about medical negligence. About Ireland's public hospitals being death-traps of "care" as Victoria White and everyone else discusses. Her death really has nothing to do abortion laws and her death could happen again, as doctors not following protocols but instead deflecting blame to the government and the law, is all just red-herrings. Savita died because the staff weren't doing their job and following protocols...and again, I'm not saying this. Journalists, microbiologists and medical examiners, are saying this.
This article needs a major overhaul to reflect reality, not be one giant WP:AXE-piece.
You both need to read WP:RS, specifically the following Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed. In areas like politics or fashion, laws or trends may make older claims incorrect. Be sure to check that older sources have not been superseded, especially if it is likely the new discoveries or developments have occurred in the last few years. In particular, newer sources are generally preferred in medicine.
Oh User:Bastun, give it up already. I never said you were the same person, but you are friends and you do "tag-team" editing articles. Something that you should disclose. You know, in case you want Wikipedia:Gaming the system reprimands. Moreover, correct me if I'm wrong,but did you not start the personal attacks? You know when you wrote the following accusation "Clearly a biased pro-life editor." in the article edit history? On 16:40, 19 September 2017. Wikipedia:Don't lie Bastun.
Boundarylayer (talk) 20:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Wait, you're quoting pro-life activist Victoria White as someone impartial?! FWIW, I'm not a friend of Ebelular and have never met him or her, to the best of my knowledge, in real life. The article is about the death of Savita Halappanavar. The article quotes extensively and is sourced from full state inquires into Savita's death - rather than, e.g., opinion pieces by pro-life activists. The article already clearly addresses the sequence of events around the breaking of the story. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
3rd & last time: I don't know Bastun. Stop with the personal attacks. Now I'm a "paranoid schizophernic-mode". Lovely. I maintain that you have added biased, unsourced, pro-life content to this article, e.g. when you made up the term "the abortion focused media".
"when all the sources post 2013, reveal that Savita's death had really nothing to do with abortion...but everything to do with medical negligence. ... Though feel free to find some 2013 articles that don't put the issue squarely on medical negligence, I would love to see them."' OK, and I'll go 1 year better. Here are 10 reliable sources post 2014 which links abortion and Savita's death.
There is loads of evidence that years after her death, abortion, and Ireland's laws, are mentioned with it. There is abundent, reliable sources that talk about sepsis and Ireland's abortion laws years after the event. Removing all references to abortion is misleading.
"Do you actually want me to take you seriously, or what?". Yes. Address my points. I address your points. But you don't. I don't see you trying to achieve consensus, you're not actually talking to anyone. Merely complaining that there are 2 editors who are editing a page about a topical matter, and not addressing points I bring up, and then complain that people aren't following WP:CONS. All you're doing is removing parts of the event which are well sourced so that the article matches what pro-life groups claim.
I'm not going to engage further until you start engaging.
____Ebelular (talk) 11:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The sources you provide are all over the map Ebelular. Some out-right making up unsubstantiated medical claims, that abortion would've saved her life, and therefore failing WP:RSMED and others clearly delineating that "the abortion would've saved her life narrative, is just an allegation". As pointed out already on this talk-page, in regards to WP:UNDUE while the viewpoint that Iraq was behind the 9/11 attacks was infact widely held in America and insinuated in the media for years afterward, we do not give any actual weight to that viewpoint because it is not supported by the actual experts and facts.

Although in actual fact, this too is literally mangled loopiness, as the Hospital never actually "refused to intervene" to treat her infection, they apparently just [| refused to preform what Katherine Astbury at the time, thought was medically unnecessary as she didn't expect infection, she thought the abortion request was unsubstantiated as the only risk she saw was "poor fetal prognosis" so even this comparatively careful source of yours is completely contrary to the actual documented time-line!], honestly Ebelular, you really shouldn't be trying so hard to find sources that put the cart-before-the-horse and sources that shout-out nothing else but that the authors have never even bothered to read the HSE inquiry?

In truth, the HSE inquiry, which is the most reliable reference, and again we should be using WP:RSMEDs and at the very least, journalists who have actually read the 2013 reports, not those from New York or Britain who clearly haven't done one iota of research.

The HSE inquiry states that Savita's death was very similar to Tania McCabes. A woman who was likewise neglected and went into septic shock and died. In McCabes case, she didn't ask for an abortion. Though not that it would have mattered if she had. As abortion doesn't abort the bacteria. Savita report has ‘relit the fire’ surrounding Tania’s death Ms McCabe’s father-in law stunned ‘it could happen again - where is this mentioned in the article? Nowhere. Why not? Could it be due to how this wiki article is biased against presenting WP:RSMED?

Now look, I would "engage" with your points, if they were actually based in reality. A fresh example would be - where exactly did you get this newfound pet-notion that anyone was advocating for "Removing all references to abortion..." Can you tell me where anyone said that? If you could stop creating straw-men, that'd be great. As all you need to do is look at the edit history of the article to see that I include mention to the abortion narrative in the lede, as it is important to give readers the facts, the timeline, to summarize reliable references and present the truth. Not medically unsubstantianted opinion pieces from New York and Britain.

Speaking of Victoria White, I was not aware she was "pro-life", or for that matter that Arulkumaran was "pro-choice", nor do I think it really matters in either case, as what matters is, are they correct in what they write? White's Irish Examiner article seems to be the only newspaper article that picks up the highly relevant fact that Savita was admitted as a public patient and her death was due to medical negligence.

Is Victora White incorrect about this Ebelular? Is she wrong about that? Is this a false summary? Is there no difference between public and private care in Irish hospitals? So look, I don't particularly care who says what, as long as the true facts are presented. Yet it doesn't appear that you are of the same mind? On the contrary, you seem to be operating under the strange stance that if pro-life groups say something, well then it has to be wrong, instantly they're wrong and anyone who says something similar - they're wrong too. If tomorrow they were to say the sky is blue - then it'd be wrong & biased! When again, you should keep in mind. "Even a broken clock, is right twice a day".

Here are some more WP:RSMED sources, apart from the HSE inquiry, that spell it out. Savita's death had nothing to do with abortion rights, laws or otherwise. City doctor defends Irish counterparts. Explaining the complication Savita found herself in, Dr. Divakar, president-elect of the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI) for 2013-2014, told The Hindu on Thursday: “Based on information in the media, in that situation of septicaemia, if the doctors had meddled with the live baby, Savita would have died two days earlier.”

Dr. Divakar is absolutely correct here, as Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines state on pg 7 of Sepsis in Pregnancy, Bacterial (Green-top Guideline No. 64a) published Apr 2012 - doing an abortion during maternal instability (severe sepsis) increases maternal mortality rates (and is thereby NOT recommended), unless the source of the infection is intrauterine]/chorioamnionitis. So if the infection is from somewhere else, such as the suspected and far more frequent urinary tract infection, then doing an abortion/inducing a delivery with misoprostol would have increased the risk of death for the mother, increased Savita's risk of death, are you absorbing that?

However, the principal problem was, to reiterate, they didn't look at her blood tests early enough, they delayed in using broad-spectrum antibiotics and they didn't bother to keep a closer eye on her, with a lack of attention paid to early markers of infection (e.g. raised white cell counts); lack of clear communication, failure to follow hospital guidelines on management of sepsis or any indication whatsoever that the team even read the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines. It is plainly evident to anyone who has read the medical report, that this whole "denial of abortion" narrative is a red herring. As the law perfectly allows terminations in situations of such severity, the problem is that the clinical team did not follow guidelines on administering broad-spectrum antibiotics within 1hr of suspecting sepsis, they did not investigate the source of the likely infection and therefore were totally in the dark on the severity of her infection or on what course of action was required. So if Savita lived in Canada instead of Ireland, but had the same medical team, she still would've died.

As like mirror images of one another, "Inadequate observations were a feature in seven deaths"[in Britain] out of 83 fatal Maternal Sepsis cases between 2009-2012. "|Delay in recognition of both the final diagnosis and severity were common themes. Similarly, delay or incomplete implementation of sepsis care bundles was noted in several cases, particularly relating to delay in antibiotic administration." - Britain, a place were abortions are commonplace. Yet are losing mothers for the same reason.

Ireland's leading OBGYN was saying pretty much the same thing in 2012.No confusion, says top consultant. Dr Coulter-Smith is also clinical professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at the Royal College of Surgeons in Dublin ""This case probably does not have a lot to do with abortion laws," he said. It is a clinical scenario - someone in the process of miscarriage and had infective complications as a result of that process..."But from the medical point of view it would be nice to have clarity - what is and isn't possible and feasible." So in Dr Coulter-Smith's professional opinion in 2012, Savita has nothing to do with abortion laws, but seen as we're on the topic, it would just be "nice" to have legislation. It's not all that important as he later points out, because Doctors had never actually been hindered by the laws on abortion. Ever.

So look, the article does not reflect the WP:RSMED opinion on the matter and therefore the article as it stands right now. Is clearly biased. Just look at the opening paragraph. Yes Savita was denied an abortion precisely at the moment she requested one, she was also denied a blanket precisely when she asked for one and as we all know, blankets are great barriers from bacteria, but do either of these circumstantial facts really matter? Would they have changed anything even if Savita got what she wanted in both cases? Like a societal lesson in separating the wheat from the chaff, this abortion request is an example of the age old: Correlation does not mean causation.

Would an abortion have saved Savita Halappanavar? "Standard medical practice under those circumstances would have been to allow the miscarriage to proceed naturally as any surgical intervention (such as an abortion) has its own risks of mishap or infection." Should the doctors have just done what she said and given her an abortion when she asked, rather than wait the few hours it did to naturally come to an end? "You do not have the right to compel medical personnel to perform a procedure that is not medically indicated and is contrary to normal practice in that fact situation. So, for example, if I go in to get treated for strep throat, where the normal course is a throat swab and antibiotics, I do not have a right to insist on an endoscopy or MRI "just in case." Neither can I compel them [to remove my throat".]

Though staying open-minded, it's a very easily tested hypothesis. Has anyone ever come back from the brink of death from septicemia due to an abortion? When they had the exact comparable blood-count as Savita had and the same type of infection? Has an abortion at the precise moment she requested one ever saved a life? Nope. Therefore to suggest or even insinuate that an abortion would have saved her life is WP:QUACKERY, literally based on nothing but wishful thinking as it has no basis in Evidence-based medicine. WP:RSMED emphatically states "If no high quality source exists for a controversial statement it is best to leave it out; this is not bias." As in reality, [heroic treatments at that point of sepsis include blood transfusions and broad-spectrum antibiotics.] - but to re-iterate, her medical team didn't even seem to know she had sepsis at that point and by the time they figured it out, it was too late. Just like it was too late for Tania McCabe before her and those 7 cases of maternal sepsis in Britain between 2009-2012.

Boundarylayer (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes the HSE use the term "system failures". That's a common Irish establishment turn of phrase to mean "oh well nothing we could have done, no-one is responsible".
You're verging into WP:SYNTH here. There are numerous, reliable sources which link abortion, and Ireland's abortion laws, to the death of Savita. You're tying to do original research.
And y'know what? Sepsis was also a big factor! I don't remove it from the article because it is relevant. Sepsis and Ireland's abortion laws should be in this article. But you seem to want to only have sepsis.
""If no high quality source exists for a controversial statement"', I don't think it's very controversial that Ireland's abortion laws were relevant to Savita's death. But anyway, The Irish Times, Irish Independent, Irish Examiner, The New York Times, BBC and The Guardian are all reliable sources. Or do you think those are all the abortion focused media?
The references to abortion stay in. They are well sourced, and well referenced.
____Ebelular (talk) 09:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
. A troll with an axe to grind is still a troll. WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, large doses of WP:POV, WP:IDONTHEARYOU and WP:FLOG are just some of the alphabet soup problems here. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)


A troll? Is that the best you can do. Childish name-calling when you realize this issue is settled and you've both been exposed as (A) conducting yourselves with a clearly ethically dubious editing style, of tag-teaming and (B) refusing to acknowledge that WP:RSMED quite frankly, completely over-rule your tabloid-esque references. At this stage, watching how you deny this, is really not much different than watching a pair of ostriches with their heads in the sand.
User "Bastun" fits into the last category, ad hominem & name calling. As first there was hysteria over belief I was "american", then a whole slew over other paranoid accusations soon followed, then another and another finally this duo have just thrown a 2 fingers up at WP:RSMEDs and devolved to calling those who disagree with them trolls. The irony is not lost here with me.
As your ilk have caused damage to the cause of spreading the medical evidence, preferred instead to couch events to push a viewpoint that is not in any senses, remotely resembling reality, but you both know that.
Everyone knows that you political worms are never about the truth, only what's good Public Relations. Am I right? It's not like just yesterday October 20 2017, some 5 years after Savita's death that the fake "abortion laws" narrative that you 2 advocate with not a single medical reference to support you, it's not like that fake narative that you have kept propped up, hasn't caused controversy. It's not like an Irish senator, Ronan Mullen who as recorded by the Irish Times said - With ‘abortion on demand she wouldn’t have been in hospital because she wouldn’t have been pregnant’ and then had his comments resoundingly criticised.. So again, we see that the whole big lie about Savita's death having anything to do with your "abortion laws", is (A) completely a red-herring and (B) continues to cause such confusion amongst people as "senior" and as far up as, Irish senators.
& yet curiously, you 2 continue with your antiquated and medically negligent worldview? Continue to protest against the WP:RSMEDs?
Why? & to what end?
I am opening up a request for comment. As you 2 are beyond reasoning with, like trying to help dogmatic flat-earthers.
Or reading the talk page of WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. When just because some newspaper author insinuates or out-right says that abortion laws had something to do with Savita, or mobile WMD factories existed in Ice-cream trucks in Iraq, doesn't and never will, make it true.
Boundarylayer (talk) 02:17, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
So you're saying that even Ronan Mullen admits that if Irish abortion law had been different, Savita would be alive? ____Ebelular (talk) 08:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Your choice of words are always farcically revealing, User:Ebelular, as to you this non-doctor can "admit" to a medical issue he just telegraphed on national radio, that he really didn't know the 1st thing about, and then received widepread condemnation for spewing this drivel again and then to top it off. You then drop your cards for all to see, that you agree with this medical garbage he just spewed? Now can you say Conflict-of-interest?
The Irish Times headline is Ronan Mullen strongly criticised for comments on Savita Yet notice how User:Ebelular has immediately tried to spin this, you've editorialized this news story to try and advance their medically fantastical narrative that "even Ronan Mullen admits that Savita would be alive". So again, what is Ebelular letting us in on here, other than that they are obviously a political spin-doctor? As yes this is that same Rónán Mullen" of yours, who in 2015 was a leading opponent of the proposal to amend the Irish Constitution to allow same-sex marriage.
So yes, this is indeed that Ronal Mullen of yours with the well documentated history of drooling unsubstantiated drivel out into the airwaves every time he pretends to know about something. He a big chum of yours in the political circle-jerk arena, I take it? Your editing tag-team pal User:Bastun clearly is a fan, seen as he edits Mullen's page glowingly, and you Ebeluar, you clearly must be a fangirl of his too, for him to have just received your special qualifier of "even Ronan Mullen". You know, It's all making sense what you 2 are about now. Apart from of course, how you do realize that you sound exactly like the folks who went around saying - "Even Bush" admitted there were WMDs in Iraq, so it must be trues? "Even Bush". Like he is some kind of authority?
You have no idea how glad I am to have finally narrowed down what political personnel & party you're wiki-cheerleading for and with that, what you are really all about here on wikipedia. I had assumed good faith earlier but at this stage it is obvious that you are not about writing an encyclopedic entry but operate with a blindingly systematic bias. You are not here to shine the light on how and why we all came to know Savita's name, but instead from the way you write it is clear you are intentionally using Savita's death to advance a political party/political desire of yours. Which quite frankly is disgusting. Others can now see you for what you are, as plain as day. "Even Ronan Mullen".
Also notice how User:Ebelular and Bastun are the sole ones protecting the loaded statement within the lead of the article at present, that "Savita died...after being denied an abortion". As pointed out before, she also died after being denied a blanket and a cup of tea at exactly the moment she requested them, yet neither one of those things would've changed a thing. These would rightly be considered red-herrings, as too is the "denied an abortion" narrative, as it is not supported as relevent to her death, by even a single-solitary doctor who knows a thing about her death. It is only championed by those in the political sphere.
This article needs to solely communicate the WP:RSMEDs. On medical matters. End of story. Yet political-worms like User:Ebelular are against this.
Boundarylayer (talk) 14:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
You might let me know when and where this RfC is taking place, so I and all the other people operating accounts for Mr Soros can turn up... Good job on the no personal attacks, by the way. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Surely you mean the "other people" operating accounts that don't do much else here on wikipedia but do cheerleading for Fine Gael? You know, writing glowingly about their members, like "even Rónán Mullen" and then likewise advancing their political narratives? Don't worry, I'll be sure to keep an eye out on who turns up and if they actually have scientific training, like me, or if they are spin-doctor fan-girls of Fine Gael, like you & your editing "friend".
I'll also keep an eye out on the other accounts that don't issue sensible responses, but are the type to instead start going full-bore schizophrenic & babbling about one "Mr Soros"? ...Who is? and is relevant to this discussion on Savita, how exactly?
I mean, do you even know what the word "relevance" or red-herring means? ..."Mr Soros"?
You 2 really seem to excel in manufacturing and propping up red-herrings. Some of which include (1)the narrative that "She died cos abortion laws", (2)Boundarylayer is "American", (3)He's using words "system failures"[must be conspiracy] and now (4) a "Mr. Soros" is in the mix? what'll be next in your fantasy train, is it Batman? Wonders never cease.
Boundarylayer (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, you know what they say. Always be yourself, unless you can be Batman. Then always be Batman. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
You're right about my political bias. I am working for the lizard people who live in the centre of the Earth and control the Moon. I've been found out! ____Ebelular (talk) 07:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

No WP:RSMEDs argue that "denial of abortion" played any part in her death.

No concrete changes to the article are being discussed and talk pages are not a forum for general discussion of the issues. If anybody has a proposal to make a change, please do so in a new section Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Now that the issue of foreknowledge has been thoroughly discussed and an exact chronology of the timeline of events leading up to how this death became "a major news story", all clearly needs to be presented in this article.

There also comes the other far more disturbing matter of how, despite not a single WP:RSMED stating that "denial of abortion" played the least bit of a role in her death. For some reason, this wikipedia article presents the loaded insination in the lede that. "Savita died...after being denied an abortion".

When WP:RSMED emphatically states "If no high quality source exists for a controversial statement it is best to leave it out; this is not bias."

A grand total of, none, zero, of the WP:RSMEDs mention this politically charged red-herring, neither | the Patient Safety Investigation Report published by Health Information and Quality Authority (Savita Halappanavar[7] or the HSE report,[8] nor the controversially "hand-picked" & apparently "pro-choice" Arkulaman report. None of them support this WP:FRINGE narrative of "denial of abortion" as potentially life-saving. Zero. Yet from how this wikipedia article is written, you are intentionally massaged into thinking it was. Despite all the medical evidence being to the contrary.

In fact, while it is always impossible to prove a negative. We even have the illuminating situation were other WP:RSMEDs, the opinions of a disparate array of the most authoritative medical professionals in the field, we even have these experts all actively bringing this arm-chair doctor "treatment" up, in the negative. That "denial of abortion" played no part. They naturally had to bring this up in the negative, after all the arm-chair medical-insinuation-experts, came out of the wood-work.

  • Microbiologist Dr. James Clair[9], even stated way back in Nov 2012 that the "main problem is being missed" in the case, stating that the real issue is that the septicemia was caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase positive gram negative bacteria (ESBL), which "are now spreading rapidly within the Irish population" and are resistant to many known antibiotic treatments.[10]

Furthermore, from the way the lede is written, in how it quickly goes delving into abortion laws, readers are being thoroughly misled as to the real topic of the Death of Savita Halappanavar, the manner in which her death was turned into a "major news story", the treatments that would have saved her life etc. Why enforce, or pay lip service to, this well documentated FRINGE opinion?

Why are some editors here defending this medical quackery of "denial of abortion"? As far as I'm aware, even her husband, Praveen Halappanavar has quietly discontinued this "denied an abortion & died" narrative. Once he became wise to the actual global OBGYN guidelines and the survival chances for someone with sepsis. So why are we continuing to insinuate this red-herring of a narrative?

In a similar vein, the HSE inquiry, a WP:RSMED, states that Savita's death was very similar to Tania McCabes. A patient who was likewise neglected and went into septic shock and died. In McCabes case, she didn't ask for an abortion, so the editors of this wikipedia page seem to have strategically dropped her from being mentioned? Yet they absolutely should. As it was one of the primary findings of the medical inquests. Savita report has ‘relit the fire’ surrounding Tania’s death Ms McCabe’s father-in law stunned ‘it could happen again - Yet where is this similiarity mentioned in our wikipedia article? Nowhere. Why not? Could it be due to how this wiki article is biased against presenting WP:RSMED and to the detriment of readers, instead pushes this medically unsubstantiated "denied abortion" narrative?

To end, and as brought up my another perspicacious editor on this talk page. This whole societal hoax has a great deal of precedence, to the widespread WMD conjecture in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq. When just because a select number of newspaper authors desire to insinuate or out-right say, that "denial of abortion" had something to do with the death of Savita, or equally fantastically, that mobile WMD factories existed in trucks in Iraq. While sure the number of WP:RS, AKA tabloids, that trumpeted that politically motivated nonsense across the land, are legion, it still doesn't and never will, make it real or does it make it true.

Boundarylayer (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Having carefully read through the article, it seems to me that Savita Halappanavar's immediate cause of death was septicaemia. It also seems clear that she was denied a termination, even when it was clear that a miscarriage was inevitable. The article states "Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old dentist, originally from India, died on 28 October 2012 at University Hospital Galway in Ireland due to the complications of a septic miscarriage at 17 weeks' gestation, after having been denied an abortion. Her death caused controversy at the time, nationally and internationally, leading to protests and marches. and that is what I gather Boundarylayer is objecting to. The point is that the protests were not triggered by her death, per se, but by her death after having been denied an abortion, and the lead would not make sense without that point being made. It is irrelevant to the notability of this tragic event that her proximate cause of death was not the denial of an abortion; had the denial not occurred, there almost certainly would not have been the reaction that occurred. The fact that the protesters were mistaken does not mean the protests and the aftermath did not occur – and that is a key part of this article, which distinguishes it from other unfortunate deaths of women during pregnancy.
As for the technical question of whether a WP:MEDRS source is needed to link the denial of abortion as a factor in the death, I would suggest that the Arulkumaran report is certainly MEDRS-compliant. Our article makes clear the recommendation that guidelines should include guidelines relating to expediting delivery for clinical reasons, including "medical and surgical termination" based on the expertise available and legal feasibility. The absence of such guidelines at the time of Savita Halappanavar's death would certainly seem to be a factor as far as the HSE enquiry was concerned.
In conclusion, I think our article, as it currently stands, presents a fair and balanced narrative of the tragic circumstances surrounding and after Savita Halappanavar's death. I certainly don't see any fringe theory being expounded, nor do I think we can excise the point about a denial of termination before the death occurred, as that is key to understanding how it became the trigger for the subsequent protests. --RexxS (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm confused. What "tabloids" are you objecting to? There are currently 73 references in the article. I can't speak to the quality or otherwise of the Indian newspapers referenced, but the Irish Independent, Irish Times, Irish Examiner, Guardian, etc., aren't "tabloids." The tabloid Sun is used for one reference, to back "Savita’s husband forgives ‘Catholic’ midwife" - this is fine. The tabloid Mirror is used for one reference: the title of that cited reference states "Savita Halappanavar: Husband claims pregnant wife would still be alive if doctors hadn't 'refused' her an abortion, however the actual Medical Report states that this was not the case." - which backs the point you're making, surely. So two tabloids used for two references; RSMED used for more than that; and quality RS used for the vast majority of the article. (It would have been courteous to point out here that you were raising the article at other venues, by the way... ) BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:40, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I've revised the description of her death to be sourced from the HSE report which, along with the HIQA report, are the only MEDRS sources we have. (I checked pubmed for reviews and didn't find any). The HSE report is worth reading, and makes it clear that the doctors felt their hands were tied as long as there was a fetal heartbeat and there were no signs of sepsis. When the signs of sepsis occurred they were going to administer misoprostol but then she spontaneously (finally) miscarried so they never actually gave it. The HIQA report is pretty scalding, saying that the hospital should have picked up on the signs of sepsis way earlier. Jytdog (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Quick note without reading the discussion: WP:MEDRS is not applicable here. It applies to general statements of medical nature, not statements about specific people. Following this logic we would not be able to cover Michael Jackson's death (or in fact any death), a proposal that I hope everyone here can understand is preposterous. For any cause of death to be reported in a MEDRS-source is extremely unusual and rare, and we would probably only have Henrietta Lacks and a handful others where we could write anything at all — that is if we follow MEDRS's strict definition of at the very least using secondary published sources in reliable medical journals. Carl Fredrik talk 00:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Well, I'd say that MEDRS is very slightly applicable here – specifically, the applicable parts are the ones that say, in effect, that what happened to one person isn't WP:Biomedical information, and you can't have a series of high-quality, double-blind, randomized controlled trials with a worldwide sample size of one (1), so editors should use other kinds of high-quality sources.
      It would be perfectly reasonable to present the various POVs and related facts in this article, e.g., the cause of death was sepsis ("not getting an abortion" is never a direct cause of death), the healthcare providers were criticized for not noticing the sepsis earlier, the healthcare providers sincerely worried about the legal situation, some healthcare providers speculate that obtaining an abortion sooner would have reduced her risk of developing sepsis and/or increased her chance of surviving it, and some other healthcare providers disagree, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
    • For something controversial like exactly what happened with her in the hospital, MEDRS is very appropriate. We have two government agency reports and they are way more reliable than any newspaper for this stuff. Likewise for any claims about how she should have been treated - those should definitely be sourced per MEDRS, especially with regard to her in particular. Hence the reports are super important. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
      • You're acting as if I said WP:WEIGHT didn't apply. The fact is MEDRS does not apply to single individuals, because as WaID mentioned above, it is nigh-on impossible to have any MEDRS compliant sources, and even coroner-reports are not MEDRS. In fact case-studies are specifically omitted from being MEDRS, so there is no way we can find a MEDRS source. I'm not saying there aren't issues to be discussed here, or that weighing sources by reliablity isn't of utmost importance, but MEDRS does not apply. Carl Fredrik talk 08:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I think that it's important to remember that a source can be "MEDRS" and low-quality (for a given statement), and "not MEDRS" and very high quality (for the given statement). I support using high-quality, independent, secondary sources; that doesn't mean that I think MEDRS is either the best or the only acceptable model for identifying which sources are reliable for which statements in this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
RexxS while the legal clarity guidelines that you bring up, were certainly an area that required supra-legal clarity, according to many and you are correct on that. Your interpretation of this 4b guideline however is a non-sequitur. As the other more important recommendations, numbers 1-3, refer to improving the standard of care. With amongst other things, Savita's hospital room did not have a functioning heating system, leaving her cold. As the "radiators" didn't work. The suggested improvement in this area by every single one of the inquests, should similarly not be used as evidence of the cold actually contributing to Savita's death in any way. Instead, it does indeed however strongly point to the underlying issue that Savita was a public patient, in a very public hospital in the poorer west of Ireland and that is the kind of level of care you receive in Ireland if you aren't a private patient.
To end with, an OGBYN in the wealthier east of Ireland, Coulter-Smith was operating just fine with the more open to professional self-discretion legal guidelines that existed in the same year Savita died. he conducted 4 life-saving abortions in the same year, of 2012. So this is another reason why I find your reliance on the guidelines as evidence of causality in this persons death, to be pretty questionably. Lastly, I do not understand your sentence relating to "excising" how her death became international news. No on is arguing to have that happen.
What I'm arguing is that readers be made aware that performing an abortion when a patient is miscarrying without knowing the cause of it, or the specific cause of the septicemia, is medically negligent. | the international OGBYN guidelines, state that to go cowboying and inducing delivery when you haven't the slightest idea why the patient is miscarrying, is medically negligent. As there are a number of scenarios were it greatly increases the patients chance of death. Therefore due weight should be properly given to the causal factors that conspired in her death. Alongside the medical opinions of those who strenuously disagree with the "denial of abortion" narrative. With Recommendations 1-3 receiving next-to-no ink on this article. Their conspicious absense is in large part, what prompted the WP:PROFRINGE. Much like how a pro-life, or pro-homeopathy group, might hijack a death to "propogate" similarly shaky & dubious narratives.
To reply to WhatamIdoing, I am in complete agreement with you suggested changes to the article to sort out this fringe/WP:POV issue. "It would be perfectly reasonable to present the various POVs and related facts in this article." I would only just add that the facts and related opinions of OGBYNs be fairly conveyed and not slanted towards one narrative, as is presently the case in the article. Boundarylayer (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Boundarylayer: Please learn how to indent on talk pages. It makes the discussion much easier to follow than when you just stick unindented comments in the middle of an ongoing discussion.
I have made no interpretation of the 4b recommendation; I merely quoted its presentation in our article. There is no way it can be a non-sequitur, because it's a high quality MEDRS-source completely relevant to the issue and the fact that an enquiry called for guidelines relating to expediting delivery for clinical reasons, including "medical and surgical termination" can't just be dismissed by you, no matter how inconvenient it is to your world-view.
There was no public outcry about the poor plumbing or any of the other blatant red herrings you're inserting into this discussion. Stick to the issue. The article is not titled Inequality in public healthcare in western Ireland.
You seem to be having difficulty reading. I have not made any "reliance on the guidelines as evidence of causality in this persons death". I simply observed that the HSE enquiry thought that as a consequence of her death the absence of guidelines relating to expediting delivery for clinical reasons was an issue that needed to be addressed. They made a point of saying that.
You are clearly being disingenuous when you pretend not to understand my comment "nor do I think we can excise the point about a denial of termination before the death occurred" You have been consistently trying to remove that very point, arguing wrongly that no MEDRS source supports it, and then adducing numerous non-MEDRS sources to support your alternative narrative. Well, the facts are that: (i) she was denied a termination prior to her death; and (ii) an impeccable MEDRS source, the HSE report, drew attention to the lack of guidelines on expediting delivery for clinical reasons. That's all we need to report. You're in a minority of one in trying to remove that; you've lost the argument; drop the stick.
If you feel the recommendations of the HSE report are under-represented in the article, then the solution is to suggest some wording to give more emphasis to them. Issues that drew criticism in an enquiry into a person's death are quite properly on-topic in an article about that death. --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
RexxS I now greater understand your false impression but arguing that I have tried to excise all mention to this, is disingenuous. Instead I have argued that less prominence be given to a medically fringe opinion,this does not mean I want to excise all mention to it. As I said, I agree with WhatamIdoing, in that, I think readers deserve knowing about the reactions to the death of Savita Halappanavar but as this article is about the death of...' a person. Then only the actual verifyable medical evidence and true factors at play, should receive the vast body of WP:WEIGHT here in this article. With respect to the specific and rather tangental guideline recommendation of 4b that you bring up. Along with the suggestion of me being in some kind of minority on this. Despite the medical opinions, the WP:RSMEDs and WP:RS discussing the major public hospital factor being at play here. With only 5 of 19 maternity hospitals implementing the sepsis guidelines. Could I have your comment on the existing OBGYN guidelines at the time of Savita's death? These are WP:NOTABLE right? Worth including in the article, I do hope?
To prevent unnecessary repetition, I ask you to hit ctrl-f and search for the existing Irish OGBYN guidelines brought up here on the talk page, by searching for "ERPC". I just linked to them below, but specifically I would like to know how they were apparently unclear? Along with how Dr. Jen Gunter, a Canadian OBGYN, similarly agrees, that the notion of a lack of existing clarity, has and continues to be a total red-herring.
Boundarylayer (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
@Boundarylayer: Learn how to indent on talk pages. Changing the list style causes problems for readers using assistive technology. Read MOS:LIST #List styles if you're still not sure.
"this does not mean I want to excise all mention to it." – That is a bare-faced lie. Four times in two days you removed the mention:
You're a POV-pusher and an edit warrior. You need to be topic-banned from these articles and I'll have no hesitation in taking you to AN to request a ban if you continue your disruptive editing. --RexxS (talk) 19:53, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, please, do learn how to indent, and use talk pages! On the substantive issues, we can see what you're doing, and what you've been removing. Please give us some credit! Where are you coming from with this weird "public hospitals are really poor healthcare providers" angle? If you can't find RS for it, don't waste paragraphs on it on the talk page. WP:NOTFORUM. Nobody is talking about the plumbing in the hospital. Stop talking about it, it's irrelevant. Recommendation 4b was and is being talked about, and is most certainly relevant. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
It is false to say that '"There also comes the other far more disturbing matter of how, despite not a single WP:RSMED stating that "denial of abortion" played the least bit of a role in her death", you keep saying that, and it's just not true. Did you not read Recommendation 4b of the HSE report? And in recent times the author of that report (Prof Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran) said "Things were made more difficult because of the legislation." Holland, Kitty (19 October 2017). "Eighth Amendment 'played major role in Savita's death'". The Irish Times., and Dr Peter Boylan said likewise. Both at presentations to an Oireachtas committee hearing! You are outright ignoring evidence that contradicts what you want to say, in order to parrot campaign slogans from pro-life campaigners.
"As far as I'm aware, even her husband, Praveen Halappanavar has quietly discontinued this "denied an abortion & died" narrative." Got a source for that claim? AFAIK he hasn't spoken publically in years.
You pick on the Irish Times for publishing a story when"few facts were known". And you claimed that "nothing after 2012 talks about abortion". Can't you accept that we're now 5 years after the event, that investigations have shown that, yes, Irish abortion law was relevant here?
You're not arguing in good faith. You're misrepsenting things, ignoring sources you don't like, and rambeling. Just stop.
___Ebelular (talk) 11:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Not to mention wikihounding; and the personal attacks which resulted in a block... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Recommendations are not any evidence of a law, or lack thereof, playing a role in a person's death.
Especially when the recommendation has the obviously shoe-horned title of "Recommendation 4b". Which to keep things straight, just suggests that extra-plain legal clarity be written on a issue that Savita's primary caregiver, Dr. Katherine Astbury, never said she felt hindered by, when attempting to maximize the survival of Savita. Therefore absolutely correct to say - not a single one of the medical inquests, the WP:RSMED, actually corroborate this denial of abortion narrative.
Moreover seen as recommendation 4 subsection b is what this wikipedia article devotes itself almost entirely to, in a totally WP:POV way. I find it curious why you do not include the fact that other Irish doctors were doing just fine with the legal clarity that existed beforehand. Clarity which allowed for greater professional self-discretion. With an example being Dr Coulter-Smith based in Dublin who conducted 4 life-saving abortions in the same year of Savita's death, of 2012. This is a WP:NOTABLE fact, is it not?
Savita's primary care coordinator, Dr. Astbury states in the medical inquests that she | suspected a possible urinary tract infection, In that case, | the international OGBYN guidelines on treating miscarriage state that abortion should not to be offered or performed as to do one under those conditions, "increases" the mortality risk of the mother. So regardless of if Savita miscarried in Canada or Ireland. If she had Dr. Astbury or anyone else who suspected urinary-tract, then Savita would have been told that she can't have an abortion, as that would put your life in danger.
Operating without knowing the cause of the miscarriage would've actually been fundamentally against Dr Astbury's hippocratic oath to Savita's life, her patient. If the on the other hand, international guidelines were hypothetically that instead, aborting when faced with a miscarriage is always what you do, & Dr Astbury was aware of this but simply didn't follow this for fear of "catholic ethos". Then we both know I'd have absolutely no problem with this article. In reality however is that the OGBYN guidelines are to determine the cause of the miscarriage and then act according to best treating that issue. For aborting simply because the patient asks, is absolutely | contrary to the established and world-renowned international guidelines and not to mention a doctor's hippocratic oath in this clinical situation. You're in fact putting the life of the patient at serious risk if you do that. Operating when they have a urinary tract infection, will put you at risk of killing your patient. | President of the Federation of OBGYNs in India, Dr. Divakar, referred to this exact outcome, way back in 2012 when she said "Savita would've been dead 2 days earlier if they had meddled with her child."
Dr. Astbury walked the panel through the fact that : if I had known Savita's blood count, I would've put her on stronger antibiotics. & "if I had known the actual source of Savita's infection, I would've prepped for an abortion immediately".
So the issue was. Lack of knowledge, lack of doing due diligence. Not assuming you know what's up with the patient, not making hasty assumptions, but actually investigating & following up.

In recent times the author of that report Arulkumaran said "Things were made more difficult because of the legislation." Eighth Amendment ‘played major role in Savita’s death’ and Dr Peter Boylan said likewise. Both at presentations to an Oireachtas committee hearing!.

For one, this was yes "in recent times". The Oireachtas committee was only conducted a few days ago of which I'm not following as secondly, it is a political advocacy seminar that has nothing to do with Savita Halappanavar or her death. Though I take it you are following the politicking intensely. On Arkulumaran himself. He lead just 1 of the medical inquiries into Savita. In this particular medical report it recommends, in subsection 4b, that greater legal clarity on the protection of the life of the mother be made. This similarly over-emphasized extra-extra-clear legal clarity was penned promptly afterwards, in 2013. With this recommendation of 4b having been met faster than the recommendations of 1 thru 3.
Now years later, here in October 2017, Arkulumaran has seemingly moved away from the report of the team he initially lead, with it's 4b recommendation for just some extra-extra-legal clarity. To now making such medically unsubstantiated statements that Irish laws did not make things easier, a sentiment that is then spun into the headline here in 2017: "Eighth Amendment ‘played major role in Savita’s death’". A headline by the very same reporter responsible for this entire "denial of abortion" narrative from way back in 2012. Kitty Holland. Eighth Amendment ‘played major role in Savita’s death’.
So to get the chronology on the abortion laws narrative straight. First "greater legal clarity" was a marginal and shoehorned recommendation 4 subsection b, in 2013 but now in 2017 they're described as "did not make things easier" alongside sensationalist headllines, of "played major role"? I actually wonder at this stage, do the proponents of this FRINGE narrative, even want us to take them seriously anymore? As at this stage, it's like reading the dailymail. From a dubious subsection 4b to now a "major role" in what, all of five years of sensationalism?
I looked up the credentials of this Arkulumaran, as I found it a bit bizarre why an OBGYN would actually be saying these medically erroneous things, if they were a prefessional and prescient individual. I found this. The independent in 2012 wrote: The man(Arkulumaran) leading the investigation previously helped to write a report advocating abortion. Which is fairly WP:NOTABLE, especially in light of his more recent suggestions in the media. Considering also that he is all directly opposed by OGBYNs who do not have an axe to grind. That is [| 2 world leading OBGYNs from India [| and Ireland alongside | the Microbiologist Dr. James Clair. With all of which strenuously disagreeing with this narrative from first principles.
To drive this WP:PROFRINGE point home, Arkulumaran apparently suggests that | he would've "offered" & done an abortion without first determining the cause of the miscarriage. A position that is strictly at odds with | the international OGBYN guidelines, which state; Find out the cause of the miscarriage before proceeding to do anything and therefore Arkulumaran's personal position is completely at odds with these internationally discussed and written guidelines that exist to prevent unnecessary maternal death at all costs. As to cowboy, to fly by the seat of your pants, as Arkulumaran suggests, to operate without knowing the cause, is to put your patient's life at great risk. So quite frantically I'm not sure how someone of his stature can ethically go around proposing this, an uninformed & cowboy-esque "treatment approach"? But then again, this entire "denial of abortion" narrative has been pretty WP:PROFRINGE from the start. So are we really to be all that surprised by this?
Boundarylayer (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a perfect example of WP:SYNTH. ____Ebelular (talk) 08:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
You have made the same charge of WP:PROFRINGE now, at length, in multiple locations. Nobody's buying it. Drop the stick. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 12:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
It isn't SYNTH as 2 contemporary WP:RS that are informed by a medical background, actually states precisely to the letter of what I have. The first of which, exactly speaks as I have. Similarly focused on the hippocratic oath and the real and substantial increase in risk of death, if you perform an abortion without knowing the cause of the miscarriage. It is even titled Would an abortion have saved Savita Halappanavar? You are acutely aware of this, as I brought this particular reference up with you some weeks ago but you similarly refused to engage with the contents of these references then.
The second reference, taking a different approach, but likewise dispelling the false narratives of "Irish laws tied their hands" & "catholic ethos", playing a part in her denial of abortion. It swiftly and emphatically dispells both: - "As Savita’s infection from miscarriage developed and increased, she was in so much pain that she begged doctors to perform a surgical uterine evacuation (ERPC). This was the time that her doctors told her that ‘this is a Catholic country’, and would not perform the procedure. And yet, the Clinical Practical Guideline for Management of Miscarriage in Early Pregnancy, published by the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynecologists of the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, clearly states: “Surgical uterine evacuation (ERPC) should be offered to women that prefer that option. Clinical indications for offering ERPC include persistent excessive bleeding, haemodynamic instability, evidence of infected retained tissue and suspected gestational trophoblastic disease.”
Dr. Jen Gunter, a Canadian OBGYN, similarly wrote in 2012 that | Irish law allows abortions for women when medically necessary, but the doctors involved were negligent in that they could not diagnose infection when it was so obviously present, did not know the treatment, or were not competent enough to carry out the treatment. - Doesn't sound like Dr. Jen Gunter agrees with this fringe narrative that "Irish laws tied their hands" or "catholic ethos" either.
Likewise from the same well researched WP:RS. | In Savita’s situation, the guidelines to allow intervention were in place. In the opinion of Eilis Mulroy(writing in the independent),"if these guidelines aren’t being followed, laws about abortion won’t change that. The issue then becomes about medical protocols being followed in hospitals and not about the absence of legal abortion in Ireland."
So again it comes back to medical negligence and not ascribing to malice what can instead be explained by incompetence. It comes back to Dr Katherine Astbury not diagnosing the cause of the miscarriage and an attempt to put the blame on everything else but the hospital and medical care, when the OBGYN guidelines already clearly in place, gave Dr. Katherine Astbury all the latitude to the moon and back that was needed, that is, if she felt like an abortion was best for the patient. So who's exact "catholic ethos" is being referred to here, in this false narrative, Ireland's? Are you for real? There were clear and established recommendations in place. Dr. Katherine Astbury didn't follow any of them. Not the Surviving Sepsis guidelines, published after Tania McCabes death nor even the OBGYN guidelines of Ireland relating precisely to abortion in this exact scenario. It's therefore a plain WP:PROFRINGE suggestion that Ireland's laws on abortion or a widespread "catholic ethos" caused Savita's death. In reality it was utter medical negligence. The inquests detail exactly the circus-like treatment Savita received. So why are you continuing to push these totally false narratives? It's you acknowledge, a minority medical opinion. Held by political advocacy groups only, Arkulumaran wrote a pro-choice publication in 2009. A very WP:NOTABLE fact. Is it not? To show how utterly FRINGE this is again, with reference to the rest of the wider medical community -
The "Forum in Dublin on maternal health". Which was attended by 140 medical professionals, made the statement - “We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.” So look, I think we're both on the same page that Catholicism is a terrible thing as it is rife with magickal thinking, however so too is the notion that, Savita would be alive today if she miscarried in Canada or anywhere else for that matter. So please put down your WP:AXE and help write this article in a professional and unbiased way. Right now it is slanted towards a completely fringe WP:POV.
Boundarylayer (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
24Kb added to the talkpage in less than 7 days, including 31 hours where you were blocked. Seriously? Drop the stick. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:49, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Accusing another editor of "tendentious editing" at the end of posting 79kilobytes (including the entire discussion above) of unreadable rambling which no other editor has shown any readiness to agree to is a rather stunning lack of self-awareness. Not to mention likely a sanctionable PA. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
One of your sources actually contradicts what you say it says:
The bottom line is that whilst Ireland generally has a good maternity service with good outcomes for both mothers and children, when complications arise, the doctor's hands are often tied, and the full range of medically indicated procedures are not available because some, led by the Catholic Church, believe they have a greater right to determine what the mother should do in that case than the mother herself.
Schnittger, Frank (21 November 2012). "Would an abortion have saved Savita Halappanavar?". DailyKos.
____Ebelular (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
  • with all these walls of text it is hard to tell what concrete changes boundarylayer wants. I have revised the lead to match the description of what happened to her. perhaps it was the oversimplification in the lead that was upsetting? Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
    • If you do not have comments pretaining to improving this article, then I am led to believe this talk page is an inappropriate place to discuss simply whatever it is you wish? However, for context, if you wish to check my previously lengthy talk page discussions, then talk:nuclear winter would be one such place to have a mind-expanding gander. Now, there was an accusation here of WP:SYNTH. I see now that this similarly erroneous claim is completely and utterly dropped? Great. So to move on to Jytdog. It is not only the oversimplification but the outright false innuendo of factors being of importance, when the overwhelming medical evidence and medical opinion, is that these political footballs are in fact total red-herrings in conspiring in this person's death. In order to improve this article. Perhaps it is time to get WP:BOLD rather than speaking any more on this talk page? It seems to be the best way to come to a consensus?
    • Boundarylayer (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
      • I did improve the article. You have written very long posts, some of which I have read, and the edit I made was an effort to address whatever concern you have with actual language in the article. Would you please briefly describe what changes you want to see to the article as it actually stands now? thx Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
        • Yes you really have improved the article over the previous situation. For which you should be commended. However, as I would like to ensure that no further wiki-lawyering/banning happens. Can I get some assurances that no possibility of erroneous "3R/edit warring charges" will be made if I edit to continue in the same vein as you, of improving the article? As no offense, but after all these "get off the talk page" sentiments. Describing the references and factors that are not getting WP:DUEWEIGHT, should be clear.
        • Boundarylayer (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
          • You have behaved badly and you were rightly warned and blocked. In my view you would do best by proposing specific changes here on the talk page, simply, without big long explanations. You will of course do as you choose. Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
(Why are people using bullets for indents?) Boundarylayer, your lengthy arguments have not gained traction with editors here or on the other forums you used (and didn't tell us about here). Instead you've accused others of personal attacks while making personal attacks that got you blocked; and dismissed reliable sources such as The Irish Times as "tabloids" - until such time as they publish an article that suits your agenda, when suddenly it's ok to use as a reference again... Now you're talking about using a conference organised by anti-choice activists to back the POV you want to insert into the article. No. I agree with Jytdog - if you have specific changes to propose, get consensus for inclusion first - without walls of text. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Boundarylayer states 2 arguments, which are basically contradictory. (i) "Irish law allows abortion in this case, so if it was medically necessary, it would have been done." and (ii) Irish hospitals were negligent in following treatment for sepsis, e.g. only 5 of 19 maternity hospitals implenting sepsis guidelines. It was system failures". But you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say "Irish hospitals are excellent and nothing would have stopped them giving her an abortion if it was needed, she died, so ergo it wasn't needed" and on the other hand say "Irish hospitals are terrible for medical care w.r.t sepsis, e.g. only ~25% have implemented the guidelines that would have saved her life, they failed to X, Y and Z which would have saved her life". Which is it? If hospitals don't implement sepsis guidelines, how do you know they would all follow the termination guidelines? If they could be negligent with sepsis, how can you be so sure they weren't negligent with termination, or with their understanding of the law? Sepsis treatment is much less controversial than abortion! A year after Savita died, and Irish hospitals were trying to "opt out" of the new abortion law. ____Ebelular (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The article needs to reflect the faulty "interpretation" of the law

no concrete changes are proposed here. This talk page is for discussing concrete changes to the article, not the general situation. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Both the inquests and hearing put emphasis on this consultant's view of the law, as it was in error, and later on Oct 24 played a part in the delay of effective management. "I also informed Mrs Halappanavar that if we did not identify another source of infection, or if she did not continue to improve, we might have no option but to consider termination regardless of the foetal heart," Dr Astbury said. This sentiment is indeed reflected on page 41 of the HSE report, albeit not much emphasis is put on this, as this is mostly best practice, in a report that focuses on where they went wrong.

The only place that Irish law was truly brought into Savita's death, was were the consultant may have wasted valuable time on performing the induced abortion on Oct 24, as they and only they had a faulty interpretation of the law and went to a colleague to "sign-off" on the induced abortion, when in reality there was no need to waste time in doing so.

All inquests pretty squarely communicate that there was an utter and complete lack of clarity on the law, within the mind of this particular consultant. Not anyone else.

"Dr Astbury told Mr Gleeson at the hearing that "the law in Ireland does not permit termination even if there is no prospect of viability". She said this was her understanding based on the X Case judgment and Medical Council guidelines. Dr Astbury told Mr Gleeson it did not occur to her to consult her colleagues about the legal position."

The HSE report writes : "The interpretation of the law related to lawful termination in Ireland is considered to have been a material contributory factor." - It does not say the actual law was considered to be material contributory factor, nor does it say it played a "major role" either way.


The HSE report/Arkulumaran et. al continues: "The consultant clearly thought that the risk to the mother had not crossed the point where termination was allowable in Irish law.".

It does not say the actual law played a role. The reports emphasise this consultant's erroneous thoughts and interpretations of the law. They do so as it delayed care being given on Oct 24.

This awareness, that OBGYN consultants in Irish hospitals weren't clear on the law, or just this one in particular could be so muddled on it, was a major revelation at the inquests, as it meant time was wasted on Oct 24, all due to a consultant not being clear on the widely established interpretation of the law nor being clear on the existing Irish medical council guidelines.

The medical council guidelines on abortion however are very clear. (In relation to Savita the) Medical Council President Prof Kieran Murphy has said that its current guidelines on abortion were decided in 2009 and reflect the current legal position. Prof Murphy said the guidelines are as accessible and as straightforward as possible and had received a plain English recognition mark. Boundarylayer (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This seems to be a reaction to a misunderstanding in the section above, and in any case no concrete changes are proposed here. So I am closing this. This talk page is for discussing concrete changes to the article, not the general situation. Jytdog (talk) 22:57, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Content about general practice

User:Boundarylayer: Both this and this were added only to the lead. The first time there was no source, and the 2nd time it was sourced by popular media. This kind of general health content needs MEDRS sourcing. Our two best sources on what happened to her - the two investigations, don't discuss this. I am also not sure how it will be possible to discuss best practice on inducing delivery in the context of Halappanavar and the situations that she was in without getting into WP:SYN, as I have not found sources approaching MEDRS that discuss her case in the context of general practice. This is something that would need to be done first in the body of the article, in any case. Does that make sense? Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

  • and in this edit you added a general guideline published in April 2012 and retained The Hindu piece where neither doctor (who give opposite opinions, apparently) don't refer to it. This is the SYN problem mentioned above. And again, added only to the lead. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
    • Jytdog I had intended to correct my first edit, where the sourcing got wiped out prior to hitting submit. Though you beat me to the punch on that within minutes. So this hasn't been an edit war. Are we clear on that, just to prevent any further ambiguity from happening?
    • Secondly I understand where you are coming from with your editorial concerns, however what is wrong with linking to the respective articles. Premature rupture of membranes#Management and Premature rupture of membranes#Risk factors? Also, while the inquests don't spell this out in massive block capitals, as they are focused on her death, not on the issues of exactly why she was denied an abortion when she requested one. The very fact that Dr. Astbury waited until after definitively confirming that the source of the infection was interuterine and ruled out a urinary tract infection. As detailed in the inquests, that very fact, shows readers that she was aware that doing an induced delivery on a miscarriage without first eliminating other causes of the miscarriage, is a major contraindicated procedure.
    • It is therefore fairly incontrovertible that Dr. Astbury was aware of the information held in the Apr 2012 Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists reference, which are the WP:MEDASSESS here. She was indeed aware of what Dr. Divakar, the leading OBGYN in India from 2013-2014, spelled out in The Hindu. "The usual [practice] is to meddle the least till the mother is stable.” "If the doctors had meddled with the live baby, Savita would have died two days earlier." All this is supported by the other medical references in Premature rupture of membranes#Management, by the way. Which we should link to.
    • Thirdly, WP:MEDSCIs include the opinion of other uncontroversial OBGYNs, this especially means the president-elect of Obstetrics in India from 2013-2014, the country with the largest growing population in the world. so I think we do have the very such references that you require, to "discuss her case in the context of [best international] general practice." Or are we not to give readers the "expert opinion" of the leading voice of the international OGBYN community? Or what the best practices of care are when other countries similarly manage a premature rupture of membranes? Dr. Divakar, spoke in The Hindu, a Newspaper of record. Dr. Divakar, considering her unique and independent standing, would also be classified as "expert opinion" according to WP:MEDASSESS. If that also needs to be pointed out.
I have read what you have written carefully. Sure we can link to Premature rupture of membranes and i did so in the body, where that is mentioned.
The HSE report says the following:
  • page 33, in the part about the medical staff response to Halappanavar and her husband asking about inducing delivery: "At interview the consultant stated “Under Irish law, if there’s no evidence of risk to the life of the mother, our hands are tied so long as there’s a fetal heart”. The consultant stated that if risk to the mother was to increase a termination would have been possible, but that it would be based on actual risk and not a theoretical risk of infection “we can’t predict who is going to get an infection”."
  • page 41: "During interview, the patient’s consultant obstetrician/gynaecologist stated that (s)he advised the patient and her husband that if the source of infection could not be found, a termination of the pregnancy might have to be considered."
  • page 44: "The patient’s consultant stated explaining to their colleague that the patient was very unwell, appeared septic and regardless of fetal heart, would the other consultant sign off (as a second consultant opinion) on the delivery and (s)he said they would. The patient’s consultant stated that if there was a fetal heart (s)he would get their consultant colleague (B) to put a note in the chart. The second consultant (B) confirmed to the investigation team at interview that (s)he agreed with the assessment of the patient’s consultant."
  • page 45: "In addition, the patient was to have a central line inserted (for monitoring, to assess fluid requirements, and to deliver drugs to improve blood pressure) and she was for transfer to the High Dependency Unit (HDU) and she was to be administered a medication called Misoprostol to induce delivery of the fetus once the patient was more haemodynamically stable. This medication was charted but not administered because the patient had a spontaneous delivery at 15:15hrs."
That's what the report says. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, The HSE inquest does communicate the number of times the consultant got the law wrong, but that hasn't been up for debate Jytdog? We are or at least, were, discussing best practices and what guidelines the caregivers were following. A fundamentally WP:DUEWEIGHT issue. While the Arkulumaran et. al inquest is primarily focused on the things the medical team got wrong, especially their disturbingly erroneous interpretation of the law. The Arkulumaran et. al report also does state that, the medical team were following the RCOG guidelines on the management of the premature rupture of membranes/miscarriage. The RCOG guidelines that the team were following state, "watchful waiting" is the internationally recognized best course of action. To minimize maternal death in the exact situation Savita was in, Oct 22-23nd. The HSE report says the following:
  • page 58: "[The Clinician's] management decisions were guided by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Green-top guidelines for the Management of Preterm Pre-labour Rupture of the Membranes (RCOG Green-top Guideline No.44 2006 amended 2010).
Yet, you have removed all reference to these guidelines and what really guided the clinicians, in their decision making processes. Can I ask you, why have you done this? The way the article reads now, is like a tabloid pushing the singular WP:POV that to deny abortion, is somehow not international best practice i.e the article is WP:PROFRINGE. When it actually very clearly is the correct thing to do. It is international best practice to deny abortion at miscarriage, just as it is to deny women wanting a stay-at-home-birth. Both preferences increase maternal death rates, so doctors understandably decline. Due to their hippocratic oath. You can't fault the medical team on Oct 22-23 for following the OBGYN guidelines. You can however fault them on a failure to monitor the patient, which is in the RCOG guidelines. That is, correct me if I'm wrong, precisely how Praveen won his lawsuit. Medical neglect/"system failures". At a hospital that was assessed to be, the worst managed and operated in Ireland in 2011. Did I mention how that notable fact likewise isn't getting its WP:DUEWEIGHT?
So I propose the following edit. "...Halappanavar requested an abortion. A request that was denied as there was no evidence of a risk to Savita's life at that time, along with, "[The Clinician's] being guided by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidelines, which state that abortion without knowing the cause of a miscarriage is internationally recognised as a strictly contraindicated procedure, as it increases the risk of maternal death under the vast majority of circumstances.[1][2]
This would be, an accurate detailing of the facts, would it not?

References

  1. ^ Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Apr 2012 "Attempting delivery in the setting of maternal instability increases the maternal and fetal mortality rates unless the source of infection is intrauterine."
  2. ^ City doctor defends Irish counterparts 2012
Boundarylayer (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
  • To all of your questions, the answer is"no". What I tried to make clear in the initial message above, is that we are not trying to determine what best general practices were and to judge whether they followed them. That is not our place and the closest-to-MEDRS sources we have, do not actually make any judgement about that. I provided the quotes from the HSE report above, only to say that this is what they actually did, and why they said they did it. What the reports make clear (the reason that I quoted those passages) is that:
  • The team said "no" to the early termination request because they were not aware of a life-threatening infection and as far as they knew, they could not induce without there being a threat to the life of the mother.
  • when they became aware of a life-threatening infection, they actually prescribed the drug to cause early delivery (and were willing to do that even without knowing the source of the infection (the quote on p 41))
  • the only reason they didn't induce early delivery is because she delivered on her own.
I am not going to judge if that fits, or doesn't fit, with the guideline you keep trying to add to the article (but as this interests you, you might want to do that.
Again as I wrote in my note above, I do not think we can put together content stating if they did or did not do the correct thing with regard to the decision to terminate or not, because neither report discusses that, and I am not aware of any MEDRS or near MEDRS source that does.
If you want content about this, for the body of the article (not for insertion only into the lead - the lead summarizes the body), I suggest you put some proposed content together, and post it here. If it gets consensus, fine, and we can then discuss if it should be summarized in the lead, and if so, how. If doesn't get consensus, you should probably let it go, but I could see taking one shot at an RfC. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The HSE report says the following, it also discusses how the clinical team were following best general practice, in perscribing Erythromycin so your opinion that we cannot "determine what best general practices were and to judge whether they followed them", is a mute point Jytdog, as the report does that just fine actually.:
  • page 58: "[The Clinician's] management decisions were guided by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Green-top guidelines for the Management of Preterm Pre-labour Rupture of the Membranes (RCOG Green-top Guideline No.44 2006 amended 2010).
I will however begin another discussion as you seem to wish to make this about the completely erroneous things the consultant said about the law, or you interpret the consultant's statements, found in the report, to be saying something of importance at the point in time, on Oct 22, when in reality they are there to reflect on how the consultant didn't know the law, a recurring theme throughout the inquest, a lack of knowledge that did play a role in the delay in care being given. Resulting in the recommendation for super-super clear "legal clarity". Boundarylayer (talk) 20:52, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
This section was generated in response to your changes as described in my first two posts here - there are three diffs with your changes. Each of these changes attempted to add content to the lead about what "general practices" or "best practices" are, about inducing delivery for women having miscarriages. That is what this section is about. The HSE and HIQA reports are the-closest-to-MEDRS sources we have about what happened. The four quotes I provided were the four places that the HSE report discussed what the medical staff thought about inducing delivery. Those are all the places in the HSE report that I found it discussed. I did not find it discussed in the HIQA report. Jytdog (talk) 23:01, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
The HSE report, on pg 58-59 reflects what the medical staff thought of inducing delivery, as at the inquest; the "Clinicians" stated that their "management decisions were guided by the (RCOG)Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Green-top guidelines." The 4 quotes you have provided here instead, do not reflect what the entire medical staff thought. Instead they actually just reflect the faulty understanding of the law, by the consultant. The article, if it is to present a WP:NPOV needs to include that the entire medical staff were guided by the RCOG guidelines. Specifically, that you do not terminate a pregnancy/induce delivery unless a diagnosis of an intra-uterine infection has been made. This internationally recognised treatment, is likewise contained in the article, Premature rupture of membranes. The edit I previously made would clearly be updated by the revised editorial section above. Can you give your comment on that specific proposal?
Boundarylayer (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Which Engvar?

The header had two banners -- I have moved them both here. Which is it?

-- Jytdog (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

It looks like both were added at the same time on 19 November 2012. Presumably there are strong national ties to both Ireland and India, so there is a case for either per MOS:TIES. I don't pretend to know the difference between text written in Irish-English and text written in Indian-English, so I don't know if we can decide by "first post-stub revision that introduced an identifiable variety" per MOS:RETAIN. If anybody can spot a difference, that would be helpful; otherwise I'd recommend just picking one. --RexxS (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I'm seeing nothing in the article that strikes me as "odd" or points itself out as "not Irish-English", if that makes sense. I've no idea of the peculiarities of Indian-English, though. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 21:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd suggest using Hiberno-English, since the vast amount of this article refers to things in Ireland, reaction of Irish groups, and government, law etc. I don't know any difference between the two. ____Ebelular (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Death_of_Savita_Halappanavar/Archive_1&oldid=1136654651"