Tragic case to reopen abortion debate in Ireland

[Frelga]

I don't actually see any new facts in the article. The original story quoted the husband. This one does not address that quote in any way, note did it provide any counter quotes from anyone at the hospital (although if there is pending litigation, maybe that explains it).

And who is this unsolicited and unnamed microbiologist, and what is his or connection with the case? If this person has inside knowledge, the article doesn't say.

Finally, why "healthy as far as we know it" is evidence of anything? It's just a longer way of saying "healthy."

The rest of it is irrelevant to the case.

Bottom line is, we will never know if extracting the fetus would have saved Satia's life. It is highly probable that delaying it either caused or contributed to her death.

[anthriel]

It took an unsolicited letter from a consultant microbiologist to raise the possibility that Savita’s death was due to a “resistant bacteria strain” rather than “obstetric mishandling.”

This is interesting. I wondered why an article upstream referred to the septic bacteria as E. coli ESBL... does that mean anything to any of you? It does to me, and it might be significant.

ESBL-producing strains of E. coli (and Kleb. pneumo, and rarely Proteus and Salmonella) are associated with long-term antibiotic therapy, or nosocomial infections.

She probably got this bug at the hospital, in other words. A whole 'nother legal kettle of fish to fry.

But it doesn't involve the Catholic church or abortion rights, so it will probably get less press. Unfortunately, the woman is still dead, and this fact is probably more key than anything else in determining why.

[Lalaith]

It looks like the microbiologist is Dr. James Clair of Mercy University Hospital, Cork, Ireland. (This is if Wikipedia can be trusted.)

There are quotes out there from medical staff.

Wiki actually looks pretty informative, if it can be trusted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_S ... te_note-30

There is an ongoing investigation, and I'm glad for that.

ETA: Yes, anthy, I thought that was very interesting. I will not be surprised if this ends up having very little to do with abortion rights and more to do with general malpractice, the unfortunate acquiring of a nosocomial infection, or another factor entirely out of the hands of the medical staff.

The main things I take from this are that I'm very sad this woman died. And I'm frustrated that this immediately became a call-to-arms for pro-choice people when all of the facts of the case are not in.

[anthriel]

I wondered why an article upstream referred to the septic bacteria as E. coli ESBL... does that mean anything to any of you? It does to me, and it might be significant.

Okay, I just reread this, and cringed a bit... I didn't mean to have it read that I am so much smarter than all you non-micro dummies. <cringe>

What I was THINKING when I wrote it was that it was odd that a mainstream article would include such an exceptionally detailed bit of data about this woman's infection, when most of its readers would not have an idea what that "ESBL" designation meant. (Some of the nurses I call when we report this don't even know what it means, the term is a bit esoteric to most. And, btw, we HAVE to call when we find it, ESBL's are highly resistant to many classes of drugs and very difficult to treat, they are "superbugs".)

Sooo... yeah. I think that bit of data was probably important somewhere, somehow. Something of a "clue" as to what that letter from the microbiologist was really about.

It does seem like this case was used to whip up the crowd about things that maybe it had nothing to do with. But that is hardly unusual.


ETA: Okay, I just read Lali's Wiki link.

Microbiologist Dr James Clair [30] stated that the "main problem is being missed" in the case, suggesting that the real issue may be that the sepicaemia was caused by extended-spectrum beta-lactamase positive gram negative bacteria (ESBL), which "are now spreading rapidly within the Irish population" and are resistant to many known antibiotic treatments.[31]

I concur, Dr. Clair. (Microbiologists all think alike, eh?)

.

[River]

Would she have acquired that infection if she hadn't been left sitting for 48 hours with her cervix open? Infection is, after all, the reason why docs and midwives in the US get very...jumpy is the water breaks and labor hasn't set in within 24 hours.

[anthriel]

I guess the point is she shouldn't have gotten THAT infection at all. And if she had gotten an infection (for whatever reason) from a less difficult bacteria to treat, the antibiotics she was given might have saved her life. The fact she got THAT infection probably led directly to her death, and that's way nosocomials are so serious. And probably why that microbiologist wrote the letter in the first place.

But yes, leaving someone's body open to infectious agents, whatever the source, is generally a bad idea.

[Lalaith]

Yes, and that's why it's typical to induce labor after 24 hours after the water has broken if nothing is happening. Performing a D&C would still probably not have been in the protocol at that point, though. A surgical procedure has a greater risk of infection than natural labor (what it seems they tried to allow to happen at first) and then induced labor (what they should have tried to kick into place, if they didn't actually, in fact, do that). I'm still not sure they did anything wrong in this case, but, then, I don't have the medical facts. So I'm glad it's being reviewed by a panel of medical experts.