Is this 2014 or the dark ages in Ireland?
Guest Blog post by AIMS Ireland member, Noreen Barron
The recent high court ruling by Judge Sean
Ryan has made a mockery of a woman's human and legal right to informed consent
and refusal. Ryan's judgement also sets a very dangerous and frightening
precedent for any woman giving birth in Ireland. In a nutshell, pregnant women
in Ireland no longer have any legal or human rights to bodily autonomy.
Essentially what this means is that the
bodies of pregnant women belong to the state and it is the state who will
decide what procedures will be performed on a pregnant woman. A woman's
consent, whether informed or not, is negligible and not needed. This is
demonstrated by Ryan stating that: “The midwife was the person
entitled, authorised and qualified to make the decision”. Read that
statement again and again until the reality of it sinks in. It means that women are not the people who are entitled,
authorised or qualified to make the decision about whether or not a medical
procedure is performed on them. His ruling is morally and ethically
reprehensible.
I don’t believe that the majority of
women realise the gravity of Sean Ryan’s ruling, because if they did, there would be a major outcry. At
least I hope there would be. Maybe that outcry will only happen when enough
women suffer the effects of the fact that they have absolutely no legal say
anymore about what happens to them during pregnancy or birth when issues arise.
They will be “performed on” whether they like it or not. Maybe they'll even be strapped down,
or dragged by the police to the hospital ... who knows where this precedent
will lead?
We have seen evidence of what other countries
are capable of when it comes to pregnant women, Adelir Carmen Lemos de Goés, from
Brazil, was forced to have a caesarean section against her will for example.
And right here in Ireland, Waterford Regional Hospital brought a woman to the
high court in 2013 in order to force her to have a caesarean. She decided to
have the procedure herself before a judgement could be made, under extreme
distress I am sure, but rest assured of the fact that a hospital prepared to go
to those lengths is not a good sign for any pregnant woman. Women should be
absolutely outraged at this recent ruling.
Along with this appalling ruling, Ryan has
also sent out a clear message that if any woman dare have the audacity to stand
up for themselves and sue the state, they will have the state’s costs
awarded against them. Now, is it just me, or does that seem like a bullying
tactic? Might that decision have been made in order to deter other women from
coming forward because they don’t want to be saddled with massive legal bills? Is it not
intimidatory? Does that decision have anything to do with the fact that we are
in a recession because we bailed out the private debt of banks and there's not
much money left in the coffers for women who have been injured (or have died),
both physically and psychologically, as a direct result of the state's actions
or inactions?
What is interesting about legal precedents
being set, is that, on any particular day, and with any particular prejudices,
a single judge can decide on a legal matter, set a precedent, and the entire
legal system will follow suit from thereon. No judge undergoes any
psychological evaluation to make sure that they are up to the very important
job of settling legal matters and setting legal precedents. Perhaps it is a
good idea that this be changed? After all, the law is a very serious matter and
it affects each and every one of us, which is why we need to care very much
about the people who make and implement the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment