It could be worse, we could be in Ireland

[StraferJack]

Good post. Want to buy you a drink now

(but I'm at home with chickenpox baby, so probably not wise)

[Saffron]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-20405702

So then, what do people think are the pros/cons of HSE inquiry versus a public inquiry?

[Dudley]

Although I am not a public-law lawyer and hold no expertise in the area I will say a few general words on this.

It is not a question of HSE v a public inquiry. The HSE are going to have an inquiry. This is standard procedure in these cases. The current problem is that Mr Halappanavar states he will not co-operate with it or consent to having his wife?s medical records released. This obviously compromises it.

The 3 Galway based consultants have now been removed. It seemed a bit bonkers to have them there in the first place. I am not surprised he objected. Whether this will change his mind is not yet known.

On public, that is statutory inquiries; Ireland does have a bad track-record on these (in my opinion). They are not like those which take place in England. They tend to be very lengthy (we are talking years, not months); very expensive and you are no closer to the truth at the end of process than you were at the beginning. It may be the case that with the right legislation one could over-come these problems but it is by no means a certainty.

The main issue with inquiries, either HSE, or public is perception. If they are not seen to be fair then there is really no point in doing them, as sense of fairness is crucial.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/1120/savita-halappanavar-inquiry.html

[Saffron]

If there's a lingering question of negligence, I can see why the deceased's husband feels a public inquiry is needed. Otherwise, it looks like a case of no one 'policing the police', if you see what I mean. However, I was surprised to discover recently that even in the case of negligence/suspected negligence in British hospitals, an external review is not always conducted. Surely there should always be a transparent and externalised review process?

[Carbonara]

It is vital for us all that inquiries and trials are carried out fairly. None of us drawing 'in theory' conclusions about this case will be on the panel charged with establishing the detailed nature of the circumstances which led to the death of this woman.

However, the sad-but-true fact is that unless a public fuss is made now the results of a hospital inquiry may never see the light of day in any major public arena. The Irish abortion laws affect the lives of hundreds every single day. If there is any chance whatsoever that a misunderstanding or over-zealous adherence to those laws influenced the medical team (and their words as reported by her husband imply that they were a consideration) then the public have a right to comment, a right to make sure those questions are asked and a right to have hospital policies and the laws of the land interrogated within the context of a woman's death.

It is on no-one's interest that an inquiry or trial is influenced by media frenzy or results in a trial by ordeal, but people deeply concerned with the wider issues have a right to have their questions answered.

I await the outcome of this with great interest, and a sense of urgencey.

The death remains deeply sad whatever the cause.

[borderpaul]

The Irish Times have published an account by her husband and friends.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/1124/1224327042133.html?via=mr

I think what probably has been established in the court of public opinion in Ireland is that a medical team could now easily make a decision to carry out an abortion to protect the mother's life. This has been the law as handed down by the Irish Supreme court 10 years ago but which successive governments decided not to clarify. Irish politicians are as bad as everywhere else.