Savita’s Death: A Warning

Published December 9th, 2012

A medical killing in Ireland teaches us why we should be radical about abortion rights.

More at Seven Days.

5 Comments »

  1. This is tragic. I became a midwife many years ago because of my commitment to a woman’s right to choose if, when, where and how to give birth, sovereignty of the body. Later I learned about vaccination and of the unanswered questions and concerns parents have about their safety and effectiveness.

    I wonder how this tragedy is different from vaccines for you. The state made a decision for a woman.

    A woman has a right to absolute sovereignty over her body when it comes to pregnancy and childbirth but not when it comes to making an informed decision about vaccines?

    What about tragic death caused by vaccines, another type of medical tragedy? Here is a tragic story: http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/02/managing-editors-note-below-is-the-story-of-iam-gromowski-a-boy-who-lived-47-days-after-his-hepatitis-b-vaccination-thank.html

    You have spoken so vehemently about the vaccine issue yet how is body sovereignty a right in one instance and not in another?

    Comment by Lisa — December 9, 2012 @ 11:20 am

  2. The difference is Savita’s bodily decisions affect only herself. Vaccines attack epidemics of transmissible diseases. So if you don’t vaccinate, you endanger others.

    Comment by Judith — December 9, 2012 @ 12:33 pm

  3. So, all a government has to do to have complete sovereignty over our bodies is say: “infectious disease?” It isn’t actually necessary to prove that the vaccine for that particular illness is effective?

    And exactly how bad does an illness have to be before we lose the right to control our own body? If it kills one in a million, then the vaccine can’t be forced on anyone, but if it kills two in a million it can?

    What about vaccine failure? If the vaccine is fairly ineffective, even with 100% vaccination rates outbreaks will still occur. (see the pertussis vaccine for an example). Do we force people to accept an ineffective vaccine? In the hopes that if enough people get vaccinated maybe it will make a difference? That doesn’t sound either ethically or scientifically sound.

    There are some pretty big questions around the idea that it is okay to force vaccines because they prevent infectious illness.

    I’d like to point out that in most European countries vaccines are not mandatory for school or anything else. So the idea that forcing vaccination is useful or ethical is not a universal position by any means.

    Comment by Deborah Kahn — December 9, 2012 @ 2:50 pm

  4. Those are Pharma rules. We on the other hand do not agree to let profit define what we must do t our bodies – even for the purported greater good. Think about it.

    Choice over your own body is not negotiable. Vaccines do not attack epidemics, they have only been tested for their ability to increase measured T-cell titers 30 days after injection. Duration of protection, impact on other cells in the body and long term health impact studies are not required by the FDA/CBER.

    There is a growing body of evidence linking neurological, inflammatory, gut immune dysfunction and autoimmune sequelae to early and repeated receipt of vaccines laden with adjuvants.

    Comment by VaxChoice — December 9, 2012 @ 3:33 pm

  5. Some folks would argue that her decision affects the fetus/child, the father, other siblings and the entire community. Some would argue that babies serve the “greater good.”

    Vaccines affect the individual they are shot into, sometimes with very harmful adverse effects that may cause death or lifetime chronic illness. Are you asserting the “greater good” over the individual’s right to sovereignty of her body?

    Vaccines do not “attack ” epidemics. If and when they work, they confer immunity on the individual. Sometimes, as is the case with vaccine induced polio in India, they cause epidemics.

    It is one and the same.

    Comment by Lisa — December 9, 2012 @ 5:17 pm

Leave a comment