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...

Asking Pope Francis to reexamine abortion

Philosopher Gary Gutting, who always writes something interesting for The Stone column in The New York Times , recently asked if Pope Francis might reconsider the Catholic Church's traditional absolutist opposition to abortion. In doing so, Gutting makes a case for a kind of minimalist justification for abortion-- that is, abortion is immoral in most circumstances but there are a few cases where abortion is justified (in the case of rape, for example).  For that reason, the column makes for informative reading. Still, Gutting puts the cart before the horse: how and why would Pope Francis review the Church's view on abortion before reexamining its even-more-restrictive view of artificial contraception?  Anything can happen, of course, but Pope Francis has not really indicated a willingness to reconsider the doctrine of the Church on sex, conception, and abortion. Everything I have read from and about Francis is that he is advocating for a change of tone and emphas...