Author: Ophelia Benson

  • Wait until the woman is on the edge of death

    Let’s look at a little more

    Some Catholic hospitals, contrary to the opinion of leading Catholic ethicists and theologians, apply the Directives to prohibit doctors from providing any treatment to a woman having a miscarriage if there are still fetal heart tones, even when a doctor has determined that nothing can be done to save the pregnancy and the woman’s health is placed at risk by delaying immediate treatment. These hospitals will require that doctors withhold treatment until there are no fetal heart tones, or there are specific indications that a woman’s life is at risk, such as the onset of a serious infection.

    You see? Or there are specific indications that a woman’s life is at risk, such as the onset of a serious infection. That’s what happened in Savita’s case. There were specific indications, and by that time it was too god damn late.

    Catholic hospitals shouldn’t be making that decision; the patients should. No hospitals should be making that decision. No hospitals should be prohibiting doctors from providing any treatment to a woman having a miscarriage if there are still fetal heart tones. Their patient is the woman and it’s their job to treat her.

    Some hospitals will transfer the patient elsewhere for medical treatment if the woman’s life is not yet at risk, despite the current threats to her health. As shown in the Study, some hospitals will allow treatment only after doctors perform additional unnecessary viability tests, despite doctors’ existing medical certainty that the fetus is not viable. In these cases patients are being denied emergency care to which they are legally entitled, as further described below.

    No hospital has any business doing that. That’s not what hospitals are for. They’re not there for the purpose of making a display of their religious morality, they’re there to treat patients.

    In the US Catholic hospitals are buying up secular hospitals at an increasing rate. This is appallingly dangerous.

  • Another leader topples

    Pausing for a touch of levity…a postmodernist plagiarist reactionary chief rabbi. That’s what I call covering all the bases!

    The chief rabbi of France has resigned after admitting to plagiarism in two books and to deception about his academic credentials.

    The Paris Central Consistory, the top Jewish religious organisation in France, announced Gilles Bernheim’s resignation but gave no further details.

    Bernheim, 60, a modern Orthodox Jew who was elected to the seven-year post in 2008, was respected by other religious leaders as an active participant in interfaith dialogue. His booklet opposing the government’s plan to legalise same-sex marriage won praise from the former pope Benedict.

    Ahhh isn’t that sweet – an interfaith dude who opposes same-sex marriage and gets praise from Ratzinger. And plagiarizes.

    Last month a blogger accused him of copying a 1996 text by the late French post-modernist philosopher Jean-Francois Lyotard for use in his book Forty Jewish Meditations, published in 2011. After initially denying the report, Bernheim later admitted that Lyotard had written the disputed passage.

    I deny it! I say the passage was written by Derrida.

    Last week another blogger accused Bernheim of plagiarism in an earlier book, published in 2002, and L’Express magazine revealed that Bernheim had not earned the prestigious title of philosophy professor that was often attached to his name.

    Ok but he really authentically does oppose same-sex marriage.

     

     

     

  • Not later but now

    To repeat: it can happen here. Already, now. We don’t have to wait for “personhood” laws; it can happen now.

    If it is determined that nothing can be done that would allow the woman to continue her pregnancy, the established standard of care for unstable patients who are miscarrying is an immediate surgical uterine evacuation. In the case of such a patient, immediate uterine evacuation reduces the patient’s risk of complications, including blood loss, hemorrhage, infection, and the loss of future fertility. A delay in treatment may subject a woman to unnecessary blood transfusions, risk of infection, hysterectomy or even death.

    That’s clear enough, I think.

    Some Catholic hospitals, contrary to the opinion of leading Catholic ethicists and theologians, apply the Directives to prohibit doctors from providing any treatment to a woman having a miscarriage if there are still fetal heart tones, even when a doctor has determined that nothing can be done to save the pregnancy and the woman’s health is placed at risk by delaying immediate treatment.

    And so is that.

    This is now. It’s not the future, it’s not hypothetical; it’s now, and it happens.

  • Expedite, already

    It’s good that someone is paying attention. The European Court of Human Rights is.

    A  report from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Committee of Ministers published yesterday has called on the [Irish] Government to implement legislation to deal with abortion.

    So that women won’t be refused medically indicated abortions because doctors and hospitals are afraid of prosecution.

    In its sixth annual report, Supervision of theExecution of Judgments and Decisions of the ECHR, the committee of ministers urged the Government to “expedite” the implementation of the A, B and C judgment on abortion, delivered by the ECHR in 2010.

    The judgment is included in a list of cases requiring “enhanced supervision” to ensure implementation.

    The A, B and C judgment found the absence of any implementing legislative or regulatory regime which provided an “accessible and effective procedure” to establish the “possibilities for a lawful abortion where there is a risk to the mother’s life” was in breach of article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Let’s hope Ireland’s government is listening.

    The committee said “the general prohibition on abortion in criminal law constitutes a significant chilling factor for women and doctors due to the risk of criminal conviction and imprisonment”. It “invited the Irish authorities to take all necessary measures”, to implement the judgment.

    As Dr Astbury has just been confirming.

  • ECHR calls on Ireland to implement abortion law

    The committee said “the general prohibition on abortion in criminal law constitutes a significant chilling factor for women and doctors.”

  • “Muslimah Pride”

    Sofia Ahmed of “Muslimah Pride” does not like Femen. She has reasons.

    What Femen are doing is highly counterproductive and detrimental to Muslim women across the world.  For me and hundreds of other women who have got in touch with me over the past few days, their tactics are a part of the ideological war that is going on between neo-colonial elements in the West and Islamic societies. Their aim is not to emancipate us from our presumed slavery, but instead reinforce Western imperialism and generate consent for the ongoing wars against Muslim countries.

    That “for me and hundreds of other women” is interesting, since it’s followed by a factual claim as opposed to an interpretation. “For me,” she says, the aim of Femen is to reinforce Western imperialism and generate consent for the ongoing wars against Muslim countries.”

    You know what? I don’t believe a word of that. I don’t believe that is Femen’s aim.

    It seemed that many other Muslim women across the world agreed with my stance and what followed was a defiant and vocal rejection of Femen’s invitation. Instead of ‘getting naked’ Muslim women from across the world tweeted and uploaded pictures of themselves to Facebook in their hijabs, niqabs, and western attire. They held up signs telling the world why they were proud of their identities and did not need racist Islamophobic women to dictate to them on how they should dress.

    Instead they needed a made-up god and a long-dead “prophet” and a bunch of male clerics to dictate to them on how they should dress. Is that it?

    Oh, is that racist Islamophobic of me? No, it fucking isn’t. I don’t despise all these bullying rules about women and veils and bags and tents, haram and halal and go back inside, because they’re racial, I despise them because they’re bad in themselves.

    In our open letter to Femen we referred to them as ‘colonial feminists’ to describe Femen’s activities.  I believe it is the most apt term to describe their particular brand of feminism. From Helen of Troy, the face that launched a thousand ships, to the pretext of female liberation surrounding the invasion of Afghanistan, women have always been used as pawns by men as an excuse to wage war. Femen are just the latest chapter in the long history of gender imperialists that manufacture consent and provide ideological foregrounding to justify going to war. By dismissing the role of western countries in the oppression of Muslim women and focusing solely on Muslim men they are only working to demonise Islam, not liberate Muslim women.

    That’s pathetic. She would have at least a semblance of a case if she said Femen are playing into the hands of people who want to justify going to war (but who the hell is keen to go to war right now?), but to say they’re doing that themselves? Please.

    She’s swallowed a keg of jargon and that’s all she’s got – the familiar phrases come out one after the other.

    Femen’s reliance on the overused media tropes of the modern western values versus traditional Muslim values is creating a dichotomous representation of the ‘self’ (West) and ‘other’ (Muslims)…Frantz Fanon…The hyper-sexualisation of Femen’s campaign and the insistence on Muslim women to strip naked as a gesture of emancipation is  a tell-tale symptom of Orientalist fantasies…Femen’s universal imposition of the neocolonial agenda… Femen have continued to display a flagrant disregard for our agency and have consistently tried to downplay the legitimacy of our collective voices. Femen have tried to dismiss our campaign using conspiracy and conjecture…

    Conspiracy and conjecture! Look again at your first paragraph before you accuse other people of that.

    The Ex-Muslims forum on Twitter are arguing with Muslimah Pride a good deal.

  • How creepy is that

    Via Ex-Muslims Forum on Twitter @CEMB_forum

    adforhijab

  • On Qatar Airways Flight QR76

    More on Jackie Nanyonjo and what was done to her.

    Jackie was a fighter for herself and for others: a lesbian who escaped from anti-gay persecution and a brutal forced marriage, and a member of the Movement for Justice. In Britain she had been able for the first time to live and love openly as a lesbian; she was much-loved by a wide circle of friends who kept in touch with her after she was deported and who miss her deeply.

    I suppose I should say trigger warning at this point. What happened to her is not comfortable reading.

    With all the limited avenues of Britain’s racist immigration laws closed to her and facing deportation to a country where it is a crime to be gay and where the political and religious leaders have whipped up a murderous anti-gay witch-hunt, Jackie’s only option was physical resistance. On 10th January, on Qatar Airways Flight QR76, Jackie fought bravely for her freedom with all the strength she could gather against four Reliance guards. She continued fighting when the guards drew curtains round their end of the plane to hide their crimes. She struggled for as long as she could until, beaten up, half strangled and bent double, she was overcome by the pain in her chest and neck and was unable to breathe.

    When Jackie arrived at Entebbe Airport the ‘escort’ party handed her over to the Ugandan authorities, who held her for many more hours without any medical attention. When family members finally met her, long after the flight had landed, Jackie was in terrible pain and vomiting blood; they rushed her to a clinic, but in a country with widespread poverty and limited medical facilities they were unable to get the medical attention Jackie needed. Since Jackie was in hiding as a known lesbian, protected by relatives, every trip to a doctor or hospital involved a risk to her life and to the safety of her family. They were condemned to watch the agonising decline of Jackie’s health and strength over the next two months.

    I’m not an expert on asylum, but deporting gay people to Uganda does seem like an unfortunate policy…

  • It can and does happen here

    I’ve said this before, but it needs saying often. People don’t realize that it’s not just Ireland. It can happen here too, and it does. The National Women’s Law Center did a report on it two years ago.

    A serious but little known problem is putting women’s health and lives at risk: because of their religious beliefs, certain health care providers do not give appropriate treatment to women experiencing serious pregnancy complications. A recent study by Ibis Reproductive Health entitled “Assessing hospital polices & practices regarding ectopic pregnancy & miscarriage management”  [1]  adds to the growing evidence that the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services have been applied to deny women experiencing both ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages the treatment and information to which they are legally entitled.

    Like Savita, you see. Not just Ireland, you see.

    Catholic-affiliated hospitals are governed by the Directives, which provide guidance. Most individuals and even many health providers presume that the Directives’ prohibition on the provision of a range of abortion services applies only to non-emergency pregnancy terminations of otherwise viable pregnancies. But the Study is consistent with anecdotal accounts that provide strong evidence that some hospitals and health care providers have interpreted the Directives to prohibit prompt, medically-indicated treatment of miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy, placing women’s lives and health at additional and unnecessary risk, and violating the laws intended to protect patients from such serious lapses in care.

    And oh look – how very familiar.

    In some of the miscarriage cases described in the Ibis Study, the standard of care requires immediate treatment. Yet doctors practicing at Catholic-affiliated hospitals were forced to delay treatment while performing medically unnecessary tests. Even though these miscarriages were inevitable and no medical treatment was available to save the fetus, some patients were transferred because doctors could still detect a fetal heartbeat or required to wait until there was no longer a fetal heartbeat to provide the needed medical care.

    You see? That’s Savita. It’s that simple. It happens here, too.

     

     

  • Usually in an attempt to make trouble

    Paul Krugman thinks it’s not particularly reasonable to make comments on the internet while pretending to be Paul Krugman.

    I do think that it’s kind of curious that I’ve had repeated incidents in which people pretend to be me, usually in an attempt to make trouble. Is my real output so hard to criticize that people looking for a way to discredit me have to make stuff up?

    And for that matter doesn’t making stuff up kind of defeat the purpose?

     

  • Jackie Nanyonjo

    This is a terrible thing.

    Very sad news tonight that a member of Movement for Justice, Jackie Nanyonjo, has died in Uganda last friday due to injuries she sustained during deportation from Yarl’s Wood 2 months ago.

    jackie-nanyojo-killed-by-ukba

    This is another one of those stories that are under the radar.

  • IHEU Call to action: Defend the bloggers of Bangladesh

    Islamist political parties have provided government with a list of 84 “atheist bloggers” and are demanding the death penalty for “insulting religion”.

  • Wednesday at the inquest

    Fergal Bowers reporting for RTE, again.

    The consulting obstetrician said there were system failures.

    Dr Katherine Astbury said Mrs Halappanavar’s clinical signs were not checked every four hours after her membranes ruptured, which was a breach of hospital policy.

    She told the inquest that when Mrs Halappanavar requested a termination from her on the morning of 23 October, she outlined the legal position to her.

    She said that Mrs Halappanavar had told her she was finding it very upsetting and difficult given that the ultimate outcome would be that her baby would not survive.

    Dr Astbury told her “in this country it is not legal to terminate a pregnancy on the grounds of poor prognosis for a foetus”.

    Pause to rant. That is disgusting. It’s sick. The issue in this case is infection and death and failure to treat, but even if it were “only” a matter of refusing to hasten the end of a doomed pregnancy, that is disgusting. As I understand it the fetus’s chance of survival was closer to zero than a very small percentage, and why should the mother be punished by being forced to wait for the fetus to die inside her? It is sick.

    She said it was her view that Mrs Halappanavar was emotionally disturbed, but not physically unwell.

    She told Mr Halappanavar’s barrister, Eugene Gleeson, that she felt at the time the prospect of viability for the foetus was poor as opposed to being non-existent.

    The phrase “inevitable miscarriage” had been recorded in medical notes by a colleague of Dr Astbury on 22 October.

    Dr Astbury told Mr Gleeson 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.

    She told Mr Gleeson it did not occur to her to consult her colleagues about the legal position.

    That seems to indicate that Astbury has no idea that a dilated cervix and/or premature rupture of membranes is/are dangerous, while what I get from Jen Gunter is that that’s basic knowledge, in every textbook. Astbury isn’t a cardiologist after all, she’s an obstetrician. I’m wondering what is in Irish medical textbooks.

    Dr Astbury said she did not see Mr Halappanavar or his wife on Monday 22 October after a scan detecting a foetal heartbeat was performed and that there was no formal request made to her for a termination on that day.

    Great. Fantastic. They just shoved her in a corner to wait, then.

    The Irish Times also reports.

    Dr Katherine Astbury agreed with coroner Dr Ciaran McLoughlin there were systems failure at the hospital in relation to the monitoring of Ms Halappanavar and the processing of blood tests.

    Asked about her decision to refuse Ms Halappanavar’s request for a termination, she said that under Irish law there had to be a “real and substantial risk” to the life of the patient before this could happen.

    Which there was. And if there hadn’t been – why does Irish law want to force women to take risks?

    I know why; it’s because priests; but it’s necessary to spell this crap out. Irish law sees fit to make gradations of risk and to force women to take what Irish law considers “unreal and insubstantial” risk to their lives.

    At the time of the request, Ms Halappanavar was well and a termination was not permitted because of a diagnosis of poor foetal prognosis.

    Dr McLoughlin urged the witness to get away from the “emotive term” of termination, which evoked the killing of the foetus. This was not the intention of the Halappanavars, he said. Dr Astbury said that if a patient was given medication to deliver at the time when there was a foetal heartbeat, her understanding was that this was a termination.

    Dr McLoughlin quoted from Medical Council guidelines on obstetric complications, which state that it may be necessary to intervene to protect the life of the mother while making every effort to save the baby’s life.

    Asked if she felt she had scope to intervene under these guidelines, the witness said she didn’t believe she could. Her understanding was that these guidelines applied to situation where a mother had been diagnosed with cancer or another life-threatening illness not related to her pregnancy. In that situation, intervention would be justified, Dr Astbury said. The issue was that there was no law to tell someone what was permitted or not. It was a question of law.

    What an incredible dog’s breakfast.

     

     

  • PNG: two women suspected of “sorcery” beheaded

    Two elderly women were beheaded in Papua New Guinea after being tortured for three days. Police were outnumbered by an angry mob and could do nothing to stop the murders.

  • Left untreated, the outcome is maternal death

    Dr Jen Gunter has weighed in; I was hoping she would. She was informative and passionate about it last fall.

    Savita Halappanavar was admitted at on a Sunday to Galway hospital at 17 weeks into her pregnancy with ruptured membranes, a dilated cervix, and an elevated white blood cell count (a marker of infection). It is clear that her diagnosis was chorioamnionitis, an infection of the fetal membranes. When left untreated the bacteria of chorioamnionitis march across the umbilical cord into both the maternal and fetal circulation. Left untreated, the outcome is maternal death.

    Just walking through the door with ruptured membranes at 17 weeks Ms. Halappanavar baseline risk of chorioamnionitis was 30-40%. Her presentation should not have posed a diagnostic dilemma, not even for an intern. She was a perfect set up.

    In Canada and the United States, once chorioamnionitis is diagnosed the treatment is antibiotics and delivery. An “expeditious delivery…regardless of gestational age,” according to the guidelines of the American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG). If the fetus is not viable there is no waiting for the fetal lungs to mature or waiting for the fetus to succumb. The recommendation is delivery. This is because chorioamnionitis kills women and if a fetus is on the cusp of viability it has a far greater chance of survival without an infection than with one. The infection helps no one, neither the mother nor the fetus.

    What I want to know is, what are OB_GYNs taught in Irish medical schools? What are they taught is the treatment for chorioamnionitis? Are they really taught it’s to delay unless the fetal heart has stopped?

    Savita Halappanavar’s medical team tells a different story. The testimony of the consultant obstetrician was that Ms. Halappanavar was not sick enough to be allowed a termination on Tuesday according to the Irish legal position. However, there is clear evidence that she was rapidly deteriorating on the Tuesday evening. Ms. Halappanavar’s heart rate was 110 beats/minute and her widower reports that she was shivering and her teeth were “chattering.” Tachycardia (a rapid heart rate) and shaking chills and clear clinical signs that she was gravely ill.

    And yet they dawdled. Still.

    What is the treatment for chorioamnionitis?

    If the answer is delivery then the delay must be explained. One obvious explanation is the swiss cheese effect, where several things are missed culminating in a very bad outcome. It shouldn’t happen, but it does.  This problem can be fixed with better staffing, education, and specific protocols.

    If the answer is, as the consultant obstetrician suggests, that Ms. Halappanavar was simply not sick enough to warrant delivery then it appears that the current “legal position” in Ireland is that a woman must be left brewing her infection until the stench is bad enough that Death himself gets a whiff and comes calling.

    That’s not the legal position here in the US, but it is the de facto position in many Catholic hospitals.

  • Tuesday at the inquest

    Fergal Bowers reports for RTE.

    A midwife who was working on the ward where Savita Halappanavar was being treated has given evidence at the inquest into her death.

    Miriam Dunleavy told the Coroner’s Court in Galway that entries were put into Mrs Halappanavar’s medical notes by the hospital’s internal investigation.

    Coroner Dr Ciaran McLoughlin raised questions as to the appropriateness of this.

    Yes that does sound slightly inappropriate.

    Dr Katherine Astbury also testified.

    In a detailed chronological account of the treatment she provided, Dr Astbury said that she had requested an ultrasound on Monday 22 October after Mrs Halappanavar’s membranes ruptured.

    On the following day when she asked for medication to assist a miscarriage, she said she told Mrs Halappanavar that the Irish legal position did not allow her to carry out a termination at that time, as there was no risk to her life or health.

    If that’s true it’s an absolute outrage, because there was great risk to her life and health. Her cervix was found to be dilated on Sunday morning, and on Tuesday an obstetrician told her there was no risk to her life or health. That is frightening.

    When her condition deteriorated the following day, Dr Astbury said she had formed the view that there might be no option but to consider a delivery, regardless of the foetal heartbeat.

    They waited until she got much worse and then they started thinking there might be no option but to consider an abortion.

    It’s disgusting.

    Don’t go thinking it’s just Ireland though. I know I keep saying that, but it’s under the radar. It’s the US too. Here it’s against the law, but the law isn’t enforced. Catholic hospitals are allowed to make their own laws. This comment from yesterday on As no threat to Savita’s life illustrates that.

    I can attest that termination is not a standard of care I received, even when requested, during a protracted miscarriage.  When my water broke on a Friday night  at 16weeks and I started bleeding heavily, I went to the ER.  No hope for the fetus.  I requested termination, and they said they couldn’t because it still had a heartbeat.  (30beats per minute.  C’mon!). They kept me overnight, sent me home in the morning with a dead fetus inside me with instruction to call my OB on Monday to schedule a D&E at some outpatient surgery center.  The next day, Sunday, I delivered a boy without warning.  Cut the cord, wrapped him in a cloth diaper and put him in a child’s shoebox.  Back to the ER where I eventually had a D&C to remove the very stubborn placenta.  Baby Boy was buried in a mass grave.

    So, all that to say, I had 2.5 days of slow-motion second trimester miscarriage in which I requested a termination, was denied, was told they could not even perform the D&E after the fetus had died (I can’t remember why…) and some seriously traumatizing moments.  I did not get an infection, fortunately.  This was in Austin, where even the public hospital is run by the Catholics…

    This should not be allowed. Not in Ireland, not in the US, not anywhere.

     

     

  • Formation of reformatories and industrial schools

    I would like to begin by summarising an overview of parts of a report into the historical background of reformatories and industrial schools in Britain and Ireland. The report laid out by *experts was requested by the commission to inquire into child institutional abuse (CICA), which was set up to deal with allegations of child abuse in Irish reformatories and industrial schools. Prominent survivors had raised their voices to tell Ireland and the world of the secretive systemic inter-generational abuse that occurred behind closed reformatory and industrial school doors. They demanded to be heard. Hence the instigation of the CICA by the then taoiseach, Bertie Ahern’s Fianna Fáil-led government. The Commission was thus established on 23 May, 2000, pursuant to the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse Act 2000 and given three primary functions:

    ▪   to hear evidence of abuse from persons who allege they suffered abuse in childhood, in institutions, during the period from 1940 or earlier, to the present day;

    ▪   to conduct an inquiry into abuse of children in institutions during that period and, where satisfied that abuse occurred, to determine the causes, nature, circumstances and extent of such abuse; and

    ▪   to prepare and publish reports on the results of the inquiry and on its recommendations in relation to dealing with the effects of such abuse.

    My deep interest in the historical aspects of reformatories and industrial schools stems from a very personal perspective, as I was a product of Goldenbridge industrial school, Dublin. I also attended the CICA to give evidence of very harrowing times spent at Goldenbridge in the mid-fifties and late sixties. It touches my very core learning about the history. I also find it therapeutic, as it brings home to me the memories that need to be faced up to, and the reality that conceivably 170,000 lives were not that disparate to mine.

    In order to find out why child slave labour of every inconceivable kind occurred in reformatories and industrial schools, I needed to go all the way back to the roots of how reformatories and industrial schools were first formed – most specifically apropos to Ireland. I needed to discover how those who ran the institutions came to be so doing. I needed to know why it was that so many children came to be together in these institutions.

    As Ophelia Benson pointed out in a discussion with me:

    I think they needed to understand what they thought their moral principles were and how they reconciled that with the way they treated helpless children. The discrepancy we all keep talking about and being amazed at? They’re churchy, so they’re Good – that’s what we’re told, that’s what we’re supposed to think. So how did they understand “Good”? And how did that harmonise with being so incredibly Bad toward helpless children?

    I think the religious sought to reconcile their moral principles that were grounded by the code of Catholicism: Sexual morality thinking that dated back to medieval times. Beating the daylights out of children because parents went astray probably justified the cruelty towards children. The dirt had to be beaten out of children. Clergy routinely warned believers that children conceived on holy days would be born leprous, epileptic, diabolically possessed, blind, or crippled.

    Starvation was also a big problem in the reformatories and industrial schools. Is it any wonder when one considers that in medieval times penalties of 20 to 40 days of strict fasting on bread and water were imposed on transgressors who strayed from the beaten track? The reformatories and industrial schools religious management were still abiding in antediluvian times and making children suffer (by proxy) for the transgression of the parents.

    I would like to take readers on an historical reformatories and industrial schools journey. Roots of every kind are important – even the tangled ones. In order to let go of a painful past, it’s necessary to try to figure out its root cause. I know this is true in my case, anyway. So many survivors, throughout their lives, have disassociated from the lives they experienced in their respective institutions. They also discovered in recent years when coming together at reunions, or when meeting each other at various survivor centres, that their past institutional lives came back to haunt them. They clashed with each other. I have personal knowledge of this happening. It was also painful being on the receiving end of this perceived rejection. Some survivors just simply cannot be around other survivors because of triggers of the past emanating from their beings. Period! The fear and anguish of the horrors they lived on a daily basis as child inmates are locked in their brains and hauntingly mirrored back when they meet survivors. I now refuse to let go of that loveless; pitiless; isolated; godforsaken miserable past, because of having hidden away from it for so long. I want to get to the bottom of the pain. I want to look deep and dare to thread into the miasma of my deepest pain and hopefully be somewhat wiser for looking back. I don’t mean being in a time warp, or being stuck in a rut. I do feel that by learning all about the history of reformatories and industrial schools it can become a cathartic healing experience.

    Workhouses

    According to the *experts report, the Act of the Relief of the Poor of 1598 in Britain and Ireland saw appointments in every parish of ‘overseers of the poor’ whose duty amongst others was to work with children whose parent/s were not considered fit to maintain. In 1771 legislation was enacted, under which overseers were appointed to arrange for the maintenance and education of orphaned or deserted children out of money by the parish. It was envisaged, too, that workhouses were to be built, financed either by voluntary contribution, or if these were not forthcoming, by official grants. The needs far outweighed both voluntary contributions and official grants. By the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, in both Britain and Ireland populations grew so much that the parish failed to be a practical component for relief management. Impoverished children perambulated the countryside or streets rummaging for food and purloining for a livelihood. In Ireland, the Famine (1845-1849) made an unsatisfactory situation extensively worse, leading to the abjuration of children by parents. The Poor Relief (Ireland) Act, 1838 was the response Ireland looked to on an official level to sort out the great social problem. Workhouses were established throughout the country under the central authority of the Irish Poor Law Commissioners (replaced in 1872 by the Local Government Board for Ireland). By 1853, 77,000 children below 15 years of age (one third of them orphans), which was 6.5% of the age cohort, were living in workhouses, while an unknown number of ‘street waifs’ were still living untamed in the towns. Families were inevitably separated when they went to the workhouses. However, children had access to the parent/s once a week. It was the workhouse rule. The children were seen as risk factors, given that they had to mix with adult down-and-outs. No education facilities were available to the children. There was a dreadful stigma attached to workhouses, they were seen as the lowest of the low. Officials toyed with the idea of making direct payments or essentials available to those in the workhouses, so that they could live independently, alas, it became frowned upon when it was thoroughly considered that those who were not in need… could possibly take advantage of the ‘outdoor relief’ system. After all the charities were specifically set up for those who were completely dependent on them, and who suffered the ignominy of having to live in dire substandard overcrowded conditions. There were also other individual charities and do-gooders who attempted to lessen the plight of children by collecting and bringing them into orphanages. Think ‘ragged schools’. The brainchild, behind these schools being developed was by John Pounds, a shoemaker in 1818. He began teaching poor children without charging fees.

    Reformatory and industrial school beginnings

    Even still all these charitable organisations put together could not dampen the seriousness of the social problem that was gaining rampant impetus. So in the first half of the nineteenth century committees and commissions were set up to investigate the wider need of child poverty. This was when the industrial school system was first thought of as a way of alleviating the problem. It was to be based on a ‘Continental model’. By the 1850s, Germany, Switzerland and Scandinavia had already approximately one hundred of these industrial schools. Some were called ‘Farm Schools’. The ethos of them was to provide practical training, as opposed to academic learning. This of course suited very well the Victorian ideas of utilitarian progress. Besides, the skills learned would fuel the Industrial Revolution. There would be a two-pronged approach to helping, 1) the children most in need would be provided for and 2) those seen as a threat to society could be controlled. The Continental model was legislated into British law in 1850. For those found guilty of offences. In Ireland a little later reformatories were established.

    Reformatory Schools (Ireland) Act, 1858 A decade later: IndustrialSchools (Ireland) 1868. For those neglected, orphaned or abandoned. In other words not for criminal children, but those exposed to potential crime.

    This dichotomy was in line with a fairly well established distinction between a penal school for youthful offenders and a ‘ragged school’ for the poor or vagrant.

    A number of charities which had already been in existence took advantage of the, 1858 and 1868 Acts and applied to the government for certificates to act as reformatories and industrial schools. These were for children committed through the courts. Those who were granted certificates could avail of public funds for the upkeep of children. For decades in the aftermath new buildings sprung up, and although reformatories were in existence for a decade longer, industrial schools soon overtook them in both number and inmates. In the seven years after 1858 10 reformatories (five for females) were certified. By the end of the century only seven of the ten original reformatories existed. Some were re-certified as industrial schools. By 1922 only five remained (of which was a reformatory in Northern Ireland) The reformatory school population, which was nearly 800 just after the passing of the 1858 Act, fell to 300 in 1882 and 150 in 1900. In 1875 – on the other hand – there were 50 industrial schools. Even reaching to a total of 71 schools. 56 schools for Catholics and five for Protestant) that were in the 26 counties. At its height, in 1898 the population of industrial schools was 7,998 inmates, compared to 6,000 children in the same year in the miserable workhouses. In 1882 committal entries to Industrial schools were made under the category of begging. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century British social reformers such as Charles Booth and Sebohm Rowntree began questioning and analysing the causes of poverty. They became cognisant of the fact that children were impressionable individuals that were open to all sorts of child abuse. Thus came about change in legislation that was replaced by the Children Act, 1908, popularly known as the Children’s Charter. Though inappreciable, important meaningful changes were made that created a unified structure of law that was applicable to both Britain and Ireland. The Children Act, 1908 covered a lot of topics, for example, the prevention of cruelty to children, protection of infant life, and provision for juvenile offence. The most significant provisioning of the Act was in Part IV, which provided for the constitutional basic for reformatories and industrial schools. It continued that way for susceptible children until its amendment by the Child Care Act, 1991, which became fully operational in 1996. The 1991 Act replaced the Children Act, 2001, which became law in July 2001. Section 44 of the Children Act 1908 mission statement for the schools. This section states:

    The expression “industrial school” means a school for the industrial training of children, in which children are lodged, clothed and fed, as well as taught.

    The definition of a ‘reformatory school’ is defined in the same terms by section 44 of the 1908 Act, but with the substitution of ‘youthful offenders’ for ‘children’.

    *This historical overview has drawn extensively on the research provided to the Commission by Professor David Gwynn Morgan, Dr Eoin O’Sullivan; Professor Se ́amus O’Cinne ́ide; Dr Moira Maguire (who along with Professor O’Cinne ́ide compiled reports to the Sisters of Mercy); Professor Dermot Keogh (who wrote a report for the Presentation Brothers on Greenmount) and Ms Sheila Lunney (who wrote an MA thesis entitled Institutional Solution to a Social Problem: Industrial Schools in Ireland and the Sisters of Mercy 1869 to 1950).

    I was prompted to find out about the historicity of reformatories and industrial schools because of first wanting to know the raison d’être behind why so many inmates of these institutions in the past were utterly bereft of any knowledge of their own history. So many lives have been irreversibly damaged because of having been incarcerated into a very cruel system.  I wanted to explore the historical roots of the institutions that in turn deprived generations of children of their own natural genealogical roots. There are countless adult survivors to this very day desperately trying to discover their roots, as they without fail were told as child inmates in their respective institutions that their mothers had either abandoned them or were dead, or were worthless beings not worth knowing. Loss of siblings! Loss of mothers! Loss of extended relatives was the price child inmates paid for crimes they either never committed, or, if they did, were so hideously minor to be incarcerated for years. The crimes comprised of mitching from school; robbing orchards or being impertinent. Some children also paid the price because their mothers were not deemed fit enough by the ‘cruelty men’ (euphemistically referred to by all) (ISPCC) to look after the children. The mothers could have been in relationships with men who weren’t the biological fathers. Roots are important to children and adults. So many lives were irreversibly damaged as a consequence of having been incarcerated into a very cruel system. Families were broken up, with many never recovering from the childhood separation that was foisted upon them by an uncaring society, who thought very little of the needs of children. They thought the solution was to set up reformatories and industrial schools. However, the commission to inquire into child abuse and the subsequent Ryan report immensely disproved their worth. They were still in existence in Ireland until the seventies, yet Britain had dispensed with them in 1933.

    Related: Industrial Schools – RTÉ

    March 19, 2013

  • No threat to Savita’s life

    And there’s RTE’s account.

    Praveen Halappanavar said they asked for a termination three times over two days.

    The inquest has been told that the evidence from Dr Astbury will be that there was only one discussion about a termination of pregnancy and it was on Tuesday 23 October.

    Dr Astbury says a termination was not warranted at that time, as there was no threat to Savita’s life and so no reason to consider an abortion.

    According to Dr Jennifer Gunter (an OB-GYN) that’s bullshit; there was a threat to Savita’s life.

    One wonders if medical training in Ireland is actually shaped according to Catholic dogma and Irish law.

    The inquest heard that when Mrs Halappanavar attended Galway University Hospital on 21 October, doctors found her cervix was open and she was told the baby would not survive.

    She was told it would be all over soon.

    The inquest has heard that a sepsis management programme was in place at Galway University Hospital since July last year.

    Meanwhile, back with the safe and powerful…

    Elsewhere, Minister for Health James Reilly has said he hopes the inquest gets to the truth in a way that not only gives some closure to the Halappanavar family, but also to every woman in Ireland that it has a safe maternity service.

    But Ireland doesn’t have a safe maternity service! Never mind “closure”; fix the law!

     

  • Sorry, no can do

    The Galway Independent gives a very detailed account of Praveen Halappanavar’s testimony to the inquest today.

    On Sunday, they were told the fetus would not survive.

    Mr Halappanavar said that he could hear his wife crying and, on returning to the room, was told that there had been some cervical dilation and the foetus would not survive. He said that they had asked if the baby could be saved by putting in stitches but were told that this was not possible.

    But waiting around for no reason, giving infection a chance to set in – that was possible.

    MONDAY

    On Monday morning, Mr Halappanavar said that Savita was taken for an ultrasound and started to cry when she saw the monitor. He claims that he and his wife then had a conversation with the consultant, Dr Katherine Astbury, in which Savita said she couldn’t take waiting for her baby to die and requested a termination. He said he was then told that, as the foetus was still alive, the pregnancy could not be terminated.

    Mr Halappanavar said his wife asked if there was anything that could be done to speed up the labour process and Dr Astbury agreed to check and come back to them to discuss later.

    The next day

    He went on to claim that he and Savita had another conversation with Dr Astbury, in which they were told that the pregnancy could not be terminated, as Ireland was a Catholic country. He said that Savita argued that she was of Hindu faith and was not an Irish citizen and should therefore should be allowed to proceed with a termination but Dr Astbury said “sorry” and left the room.

    And on it went, pointlessly, until she was dead.