Skip to main content

The irony of the inquiry into Dr. Halappanavar's death

The Associated Press (via The Washington Post) reports that the composition of the panel that is investigating Dr. Savita Halappanavar's death in Ireland has changed:
Prime Minister Enda Kenny told lawmakers he hoped the move — barely 24 hours after Ireland unveiled the seven-member panel — would allow the woman’s widower to support the probe into why Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old Indian dentist, died Oct. 28 while hospitalized in Galway. 
Kenny’s U-turn came hours after her husband, Praveen Halappanavar, said he would refuse to talk to the investigators and would not consent to their viewing his wife’s medical records because three of the Galway hospital’s senior doctors had been appointed as investigators.
Kenny said that the three doctors would be replaced by other officials “who have no connection at all with University Hospital Galway. In that sense the investigation will be completely and utterly independent.” 
This makes sense. Why conduct an inquiry at all if it can be accused, right from the start, of a conflict of interest?

As I discussed in an earlier post, the mainstream press and the pro-life press are reporting things rather differently. The mainstream narrative assumes that Dr. Halappanavar's death is the result of bad laws-- a failure to implement clear legal guidelines to guide doctors. The pro-life narrative is that Dr. Halappanavar's death is the result of bad doctors. Their assertion is that medical guidelines published by the Medical Council  clearly allow for an abortion in Dr. Halappanavar's case, so Ireland's pro-life laws do not need to be changed. Instead, incompetent doctors at University Hospital Galway are at fault. (What Catholic doctrine recommended in this situation is, it seems to me, opaque.)

From the standpoint of politics, the irony of kicking the Galway doctors off of the investigative panel is that if the doctors from University Hospital Galway were inclined to engage in a whitewash, they would likely have blamed bad laws. Saying that Dr. Halappanavar's death was caused by bad laws is a way of shifting accountability away from the Hospital and its doctors. Therefore, a panel composed of doctors looking to stick up for one another might have made the liberalization of Ireland's abortion laws more likely, actually.

It is possible that the investigative panel will look at Medical Council guidelines and conclude that Dr. Halappanavar's doctors were primarily at fault, guilty of incompetence and/or fatal diffidence in the face of Catholicism. Given the mainstream press narrative, a panel report that blames 'a few bad apples' and  does not recommend wider legal change is going to come as a nasty shock and itself seem like a whitewash.

Links:

Associated Press article, published in The Washington Post (November 20, 2012): In U-turn, Ireland drops 3 doctors from probe into hospital death of woman denied abortion 

Reuters article (November 23, 2012): Ireland opens new probe into death of woman denied abortion

A balanced analysis of the politics of the inquiry, in The Irish Times (November 24, 2012): Time for political focus on abortion not procrastination 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...

Spontaneous miscarriage and the morality of abortion

Hello, everyone! I have been away from the blog for a while, during a period of great activity regarding reproductive politics. So let's get back to discussing this always-interesting topic.  In reading an essay by Gary Gutting (subject of a separate post), I followed a link to this blog post by philosopher Peter Smith.  He wonders why intentional termination of an early pregnancy is more morally consequential than a spontaneous early miscarriage (which occurs in roughly 30% of conceptions). What he is really doing is calling attention to a perceived hypocrisy by pro-life advocates: If unborn are valuable humans from the moment of conception, why isn't there more of an outcry over the heavy loss of human life by natural miscarriage? If the value of the unborn is equal across all situations, Smith suggests, then this apparent lack of concern over natural miscarriage indicates that opposition to abortion, at least early in pregnancy, is about something else.  ...